Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17

Category:Wikipedians in Whitehorse

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:Wikipedians in Whitehorse, Yukon, reconsider a merger if necessary. More discussion is needed for a merger to happen but the initial rename is non-controversial. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Whitehorse to Category:Wikipedians in Whitehorse, Yukon

Nominator's rationale: Per Whitehorse, Yukon, and to avoid confusion with other places named "Whitehorse" or "White Horse".

or

Propose upmerging Category:Wikipedians in Whitehorse to Category:Wikipedians in the Yukon

Nominator's rationale: Whitehorse has a population of less than 30,000 and in the past we usually have, to limit the proliferation of small user categories for every minor locality, upmerged user categories for places with less than 50,000 people. In addition, the only user in the category has not edited in over two years and the parent category itself contains less than ten users. On the other hand, Yukon covers a large territory and it could be helpful, from the perspective of obtaining free images (which is the primary means by which these 'Wikipedians by location' categories could be useful), to know where in the Yukon a particular user resides.

I am leaning toward upmerging, swayed mainly by the fact that the category's only member has been inactive for two years, but I want to present both options for discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2011 (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.

Arts and culture templates by country

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pakistan culture templates to Category:Pakistan arts and culture templates

Propose renaming Category:Chinese culture templates to Category:Chinese arts and culture templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename and add "arts and culture" instead of just "culture", so that it matches the name of other similiar categories in the parent Category:Arts and culture templates by country. Mar4d (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I added Category:Chinese culture templates into the nomination as it does not seem contentious. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (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:Next Generation Portable

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Next Generation Portable to Category:PlayStation Vita

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the title of the article. Pichpich (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - NGP wad just a codename. Replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiasuKiasiMan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current name is overly generic, and the codename was NGP not the name of this category. Use the release name instead. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2011 (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:Tingstad and Rumbel

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#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per WP:OC#Eponymous. Only one subcat which itself has only one album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "anonymous" deletion nominations are not OK imho. You should contact me first, so that I know that you delete something I have created. It is luck that my nomination is below this; I possibly wouldn't even look at this log. I recommend you to use WP:TWINKLE, as it's very fast and easy. It also puts a note on the talk page automatically, so you don't need to put this manually. Delete this under G7, as per nominator's delete rationale.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 13:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Category:New Wave albums by American artists

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: Already deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Wave albums by American artists to Category:New Age albums by American artists

Nominator's rationale: different genres; please rename it. Thank you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 07:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:New Age albums which is not big enough to warrant dispersal into nationality subcats (of which there is only 1, which itself has only 1 subcat). Occuli (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Wave albums by American artists was deleted; nomination can be closed.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 09:08, 17 June 2011 (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:Uncategorized redirect templates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category serves no useful purpose. Categorising something as uncategorised is not only contradictory but pointless because it would be easier just to categorise it properly. If no appropriate category can be found for a redirect template, it can be placed in Category:Redirect templates until it is moved to a subcategory. This category is currently empty and only has one in-coming link outside of the user and user talk namespaces. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is redundant to the parent category. Gurch (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: if deleted, change the instruction on the page Category:All redirect templates. I can't figure out what the purpose was, but I think it used to be populated using a template. Consider also nominating the other parent, and three sibling categories:

Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates

Category:Uncategorized navbox templates

Category:Uncategorized infobox templates

Category:Uncategorized userbox templates

See User talk:Cenarium/Archive 3#Uncategorized template categories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Category:Uncategorized redirects (result was Delete). Seems to me that all these categories prevent pages showing up in Special:UncategorizedTemplates, etc, so they are a half-way house in housekeeping tasks; but I can't figure out how that really helps. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (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:Wikipedians wanting to log into Wikimedia with OpenID

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated category groups editors by either a particular desire or advocacy for the OpenID Proposal, depending on one's interpretation. Either way, there is extensive precedent to delete both types of user categories ("by desire"; "by support/opposition of a Wikipedia issue"), since neither one facilitates encyclopedic collaboration. The userbox allows users to express support for the OpenID Proposal, Wikipedia talk:OpenID Proposal serves as the most logical venue for centralized discussion and cooperation regarding this issue, and Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Awg1010/OpenID provides a list of users who transclude the userbox. Therefore, the category is, at best, redundant. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bait for pov pushers Curb Chain (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2011 (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:Toronto Maple Leafs arenas

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Even if fully filled out, there would only be three or four entries and carry little use. Upmerge to parent and delete. Reso lute 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over categorization, teams spend decades in the same arena and as pointed out even a franchise as old as the Leafs only has a handful.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (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.

NHL Postseasons

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/Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While I'm not completely convinced there is value on categorizing Stanley Cup Finals articles by participating teams, if we are to do so, I see no need for numerous microcategories that are redundant to the team season categories. The post-season is part of the season, afterall. There are also several categories with one or two entries, and no possibility of expansion as the teams are defunct. Propose merging all:

I'm also not opposed to simply upmerging to the main team categories, where I believe most of these articles were originally categorized, or simply deleting all. Reso lute 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Postseasons are typically part of each teams season page so adding a category for Stanley Cup Finals appearance and big playoff games (e.g Easter Epic) is over categorization, especially given that for the majority of the teams there isn't more than 3 or 4 articles in each category. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merging, Upmerging, Or Deleting Category:Anaheim Ducks postseason, for example, has 2 articles to 2003 Stanley Cup Finals and 2007 Stanley Cup Finals. This is overcategorization because it is just listing on the articles page that it is the Anahiem Ducks's postseason, so what is the benefit of that?Curb Chain (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per the above. When I saw these I thought about going this route as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (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:The National Archives

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The National Archives to Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category needs disambiguation to match The National Archives (United Kingdom). The National Archives is obviously a widely used name and redirects to List of national archives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Nobrainer (this is obviously ambiguous and requires renaming because who knows what the national archives "means"?)Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. (But I'm not going to lose too much sleep about being overruled!) Technically 'The National Archives' is not a widely used name as List of national archives neatly demonstrates. NARA is NARA - and incidentally has the category (Category:National_Archives_and_Records_Administration) to prove it. The National Archives of India are 'The National Archives of India' and so on. The National Archives sited at Kew is not The National Archives UK any more than The Times is the London Times. The question is one of balancing a perceived ambiguity with calling things by their actual name. Curb's separate question of whether people know what The National Archives means is reasonable. Three thoughts spring to mind: one is that people only have to click to find out, secondly that there are many categories that I don't understand but that a user with a broad knowledge of the area in question would instantly make sense of and thirdly the relative lack of knowledge about our institution and collections is exactly what I'm here to attempt to ameliorate. --Mr impossible (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is not to name the category Category:The National Archives UK. It is to name it Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom). Placing the country information in parentheses is a disambiguator (ie, not part of the name of the thing) and thus preserves the official name of the institution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I was aware of that. I just used the former as a (I now see confusing) shorthand. I stand by the point that the disambiguation isn't necessary when the name isn't formally shared with another institution. --Mr impossible (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might agree with you in the case of the category if there were a consensus to move the article to The National Archives, but I doubt that would occur if a move proposal was made. I think the argument you are making is essentially one that would apply in arguing that the article would be moved. But until then, I don't see why the article and category names should be different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was considerable discussion on that very subject just a few months ago [2]. I must have been washing my hair. But that is a chicken and egg argument. If I went to have the article name changed, no doubt the category name you propose would be cited as an argument for maintaining the status quo there. I have to start somewhere. --Mr impossible (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        True, but in the chicken-and-egg world of Wikipedia, almost everybody agrees that the article name comes first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]