Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 15

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 if populated. There is agreement that this is a valuable category if it is populated. If it remains unpopulated after a few months, then it can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plants with indehiscent fruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category with difficult parameters (ie. not clear cut) that is nowhere near any sort of representation of the topic, and it will be a huge exercise to populate for very little gain. If it were fully populated it would contain a huge number of entries as to become unwieldy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a little: for the same reasons as stated in Category:Plants with dehiscent fruit (below). Hamamelis (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a lot of effort to fully populate this category, but some of us have noticed that it would be instructive to have this information tabulated. The work is slow because it is necessary to check upwards in the phylogeny to see at what level this characteristic changes, for example, Raphanus is indehiscent, but many genera in Brassicaceae are dehiscent. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is probably best to comment on the CfD below since they are both a similar case. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:30, 16 December 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.

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 if populated. There is agreement that this is a valuable category if it is populated. If it remains unpopulated after a few months, then it can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plants with dehiscent fruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category with difficult parameters (ie. not clear cut) that is nowhere near any sort of representation of the topic, and it will be a huge exercise to populate for very little gain. If it were fully populated it would contain a huge number of entries as to become unwieldy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! Why couldn't a discussion have been held about the merits and minuses of this category (and its counterpart) in a less urgent way? I see your points, and am happy to discuss it like a human (not a robot), but "speedy" is my objection, as it forces a discussion post haste. What is the urgency? Will not having a civilized discussion stop the earth coming to an end? If there is no other way to have a category, etc. deleted, than there certainly should be. Using a "speedy" for something that is not on the face of it patently rediculous (like, I don't know [[Category:People with upside-down faces]]) is a misuse of the procedure. I once had something "speedily deleted" literally within seconds of the warning, with no time at all given for a discussion. Please notch the undue urgency down some. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the forum to discuss. It won't be speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a speedy deletion forum. CFD provides at least a week for discussing its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged for speedy deletion prior to this discussion beginning; hence the user's concern. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no urgency as already stated and here we are discussing it.... It should alos be realised that deletion is not permanent. If such a category is to exist, and I am not convinced that there is such a reason, it would be better to populate it rather than let it sit virtually empty for months on end. One way to populated it is to find a database that include all dehiscent species, plug the data into AWB, and have them added to this category. The test of the article would also have to state that the species is dehiscent. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a database existed that had this information, I would not consider it a useful addition to wikipedia. It is the non-existence of such a tabulation that makes it attractive. Nadiatalent (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if the botanists don't bother with tabulating dehiscent species why should we do it on WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that "not to be confused with" links between wikipedia pages are broader in scope than the "words commonly misused" books that exist on paper. I.e., wikipedia has potential to be something uniquely useful. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am arguing that it is not a useful category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep -- I am a non-specialist, but it seems to me that this is a notable characteristic. It may be that the converse (indehescent fruit) is too common to warrant a category. I would comment that it is unusual to for a category to specify the quality of an article must achieve before it can be added. It would be more useful for the headnote to include a short definition of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many categories do have "rules". In this case, they are very minimal: basically that dehiscence must be mentioned in the article in relation to the plant (or plants) having it as a defining characteristic; and that this be cited to a reliable source (to my mind, standards along these lines should be the minimum for just about any category). Hamamelis (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a defining characteristic and is very useful. Nominator's rationale of huge effort to populate is insufficient reason to delete. Also, size of the category can be mitigated by use of subcategorization. I see no valid reason presented to delete. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subcategorization (as a way to simplify populating) was what I was thinking as well: there are many ways a fruit can be dehiscent, just take a look at dehiscence (botany) to find some them (and there may be other kinds of dehiscence that have yet to be included in the article). Hamamelis (talk) 22:26, 27 December 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.

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 speedy renamed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey in Washington D.C. to Category:Ice hockey in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Standard usage with comma after Washington and before D.C. Hugo999 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have nominated this for speedy renaming per criterion C2D. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be called "hockey" and not "ice hockey" ? "field hockey" is "field hockey", but "ice hockey" is usually "hockey" in AmE. Though "ice hockey" has the advantage of not having UK persons categorizing field hockey into it accidentally. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no field hockey in Washington, D.C.? All the ice hockey categories say "ice hockey", regardless of location. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American English -- hockey is ice hockey, field hockey is field hockey. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if we used local terms everywhere, we would have "Hockey in the United States" and "Hockey in India" referring to two different sports. Same with American/Canadian/Association football. At any rate, changing the structure like that would require its own CfD. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we already do do that. Category:Hockey in the United Kingdom is about field hockey, and it isn't called "field hockey". 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's completely out of whack with the rest of the category system. I've nominated the UK categories for deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And unless the contents have changed significantly since you posted, 76.65, I don't see how it's about field hockey (subcats for field and ice, with the regional cats the same). Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by what the description seemed to be saying. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 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.

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. The possibility of confusion with the Canada and Scotland parties seems non-trivial.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prohibition Party (United States) to Category:Prohibition Party

Nominator's rationale: (including subcategories) No dab required, per main article. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Are you sure there have been no Prohibition Party elsewhere? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Well there is Prohibition party (Canada) (shouldn’t it be Prohibition Party (Canada) if it was an organised party?) and Scottish Prohibition Party in Category:Prohibition parties, but neither look like warranting their own category (unless the overcategorization of British political parties continues!). Hugo999 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if these categories existed, they could just have their suffix in parentheses without needing one for this category. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ambiguous per Hugo999, Categories should not be ambiguous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Prohibition Party is a primary topic, and category names are encouraged to match their main article (indeed, there's a speedy renaming criterion, C2D, to enable this). That said, given the existiance of the two parties mentioned by Hugo999, there's a possibility the main article should be moved to Prohibition Party (United States), in which case this move would be opposed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment categories are also many times not named like the corresponding article, because they are overly ambiguous in a category setting (which unlike an article, requires maintenance to keep it clear of miscategorized pages)... 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:33, 21 December 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.

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:Celebrity Fit Club participants needs to be nominated separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity Jigs 'n' Reels participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually delete categories that categorize participants in "celebrity" reality shows, because participating in the reality programme is not defining for the individuals. That's why they are "celebrities"—they are notable for something else, not for participating in reality TV. I think the same is true with those in this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- Standard practice for "Performance by performer" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the same not true of the similar Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants and Category:Dancing on Ice participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.68 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants to the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.68 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 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.

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 already empty. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighborhoods of Itaim Bibi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only had one page, no other such sub cats exist for similar categories. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I susoect that the creator intrended to add a category for Itaim Bibi (district of São Paulo) to the parent, but did not understand how to do so. That article is itslef only a minimally sized stub, and properly categorised in Category:Category:Districts of São Paulo. The parent neighborhoods category is apparently trying to duplicate that but rather less well. Its existence is thus questionable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SMALLCAT --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 16 December 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.

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 - was C2D speedy eligible. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kinmen to Category:Quemoy

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally named 'Quemoy', but was automatically renamed to 'Kinmen' following the move of the article of the same name. However, that article has since been moved back to 'Quemoy', which is the common English name for the islands. Shrigley (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 16 December 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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington Senators managers to Category:Washington Senators (1901–1960) managers

Propose renaming Category:Washington Senators players to Category:Washington Senators (1901–1960) players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These were nominated at the speedy section but a user thought that they should come here because I was proposing an insufficient disambiguation. I'm basically proposing the rename to bring these categories into conformity with their parent, which is Category:Washington Senators (1901–1960). The contents are limited to managers and players from the 1901–1960 Washington Senators and the disambiguation is needed to distinguish them from Category:Washington Senators (1891–1899) managers/Category:Washington Senators (1961–1971) managers and Category:Washington Senators (1891–1899) players/Category:Washington Senators (1961–1971) players. The nominated categories need to be disambiguation categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate rename the head category to Category:Washington Senators (MLB 1901–1960), and rename all the subcategories to match, since US senators and state senators can have managers, and the head category itself is ambiguous, because it can be used to categorize political senators from this period. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the name format would take a broader nomination, since there is a head category and other subcategories. This is only dealing with two of the subcategories. After this one closes I suggest you could start a nomination that covers all of the subcategories. I personally don't think there's any real ambiguity involved here. Political senators do not have "managers", and if they did why would we group them in a 1901–1960 time period? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (Is there any evidence of US and/or state senators or their managers being added to these categories?) Occuli (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None that I have seen after going through most of the articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to comform to the other teams with the same nickname.Neonblak ^talk - 02:58, 16 December 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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Washington Senators (NL) players to Category:Washington Senators (1891–1899) players

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These are duplicate categories. The target category is named to match Category:Washington Senators (1891–1899), Washington Senators (1891–1899), and Washington Senators (1891–1899) all-time roster. Washington Senators (NL) redirects to Washington Senators (1891–1899). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative merge everything to Category:Washington Senators (NL 1891–1899) players, and rename the head category to Category:Washington Senators (NL 1891–1899) and all the subcategories similarly, since just using 1891-1899 is ambiguous, as Washington state was admitted into the Union in 1889, so would have had US senators, and district or state senators anyways. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that approach. As always, the category names should match the main article name, which is Washington Senators (1891–1899). The there is any ambiguity (and I don't think it's a live issue), it should be dealt with on the article talk page. In any case, this is only dealing here with one subcategory, not the entire tree of Category:Washington Senators (1891–1899). A future nomination could pursue a broader rename proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can support this move as long as the Category:Washington Statesmen players / Category:Washington Statesmen managers stay intact, which appeared to me was not the original speedy's intent.Neonblak ^talk - 02:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to merge those into the Washington Senators (1891-1899) categories because Washington Statesmen redirects to Washington Senators (1891–1899), but since you've expressed a desire to keep the Statesmen ones separated, that's fine with me and I can live with it. They can just be subcategories. We could discuss what to do with them in a separate nomination in the future but for now this proposal doesn't affect those ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The convention is to separate the player and managers among franchise's various nicknames. See the Dodgers, Giants, and Reds as an example. This is no different, they were the Statesmen in 1891, moved to the NL in 1892 and changed their name to the Senators.Neonblak ^talk - 10:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see doing that when the team moves from one city to another, but when a team stays in the same city but merely changes its team name slightly, as with the Florida/Miami Marlins, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays/Rays, I honestly can't see the point of retaining the distinction. If the team changes leagues, as with this one, there is perhaps a better case for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point, but I can't agree. It's a slippery slope leading to overhauling many team's historical categories. Dodgers, Reds, Yankees, Braves, Cubs, etc. All of these have had different nicknames without moving or prompted by a league change. But, since this isn't dealing with that directly, my point is mute for now.Neonblak ^talk - 03:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or moot. It's interesting that it's only with certain sports categories that we insist on separate categories for entities that continued under a different name only. For educational institutions, political parties, and most other organizations, we just lump everyone together under whatever name the WP article bears, even if it has had multiple names in the past. It would quickly become unmanageable if we expanded the sports approach to all organizations and had a separate category for each different name. I wonder why the exception is implemented for these? I won't say the word "cruft", but it sure starts to look that way when compared to other areas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 20 December 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.