Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24

Category:Palmetto, Georgia

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, but keep Category:People from Palmetto, Georgia. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorization for a small town (pop. 4K), without the volume of content needed to justify an eponymous category. Its article is basically the generic demographic profile that we used to let bots create as data dumps, and has had no content added to it suggesting that there's anything of note in the community to file in an eponymous category tree. And furthermore, this category tree is totally misconstructed: the people category contains just one person (violating WP:SMALLCAT) and a sportspeople subcategory which is just duplicate categorization of the same person (and has already been separately nominated for its own deletion discussion by somebody else, which is why I haven't included it here), while all of the other subcategories just recursively reparent each other without actually containing even one other article between them. As always, every town or city does not automatically get its own dedicated eponymous subcategory tree just because it exists: the question of whether such a category is warranted or not hinges on how much content there is to file in it — but this entire scheme is literally using seven categories just to overcategorize one person, which is not a thing we do. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2019 (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.

Canadian politicians of Afghani descent

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. MER-C 10:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One, two or three person WP:SMALLCATs for triple intersections of nationality, ethnic background and occupation. This is not automatically always a defining characteristic in its own right, and such a category does not automatically always need to exist as soon as one or two people can technically be added to it — and furthermore, these are all newly created within the last 24 hours by an editor who was actively trying to undermine a still-open CFD discussion on some of the other subcategories of Category:Canadian politicians by ethnic or national origin, by building out a new tree of sibling categories so that the other discussion would retroactively transform into incomplete partial breakage of an "established" category scheme that's suddenly much more "comprehensive" than it was at the time of the original nomination. But as always, you don't forestall CFD discussions through stunts like this — you build consensus on the strength of your arguments in the discussion, not by personally expanding the scheme so that you can break the original nomination rationale by pretending that the nominator negligently failed to account for the "whole" tree. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2019 (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:Politicians by religion

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Category:Politicians by religion

Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia

Category:List-Class articles

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: do not rename. MER-C 10:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:CAPS, MOS:HYPHEN and WP:LOWERCASE, Wikipedia is supposed to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Per WP:TITLE: "The general rule in English to not capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name (as in post-Soviet) ..." Per MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name: Graeco-Roman and Mediterranean-style, but not Gandhi-Like." Then why do we have uppercase here for "Class" after a hyphen? Note that there is also a still-open closely related speedy request that I filed on 2 July for renaming Category:List-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles to Category:List-class politics of the United Kingdom articles (with lowercase for both the "c" in "class" and the "p" in "politics". —BarrelProof (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to Fayenatic london, who commented on the prior speedy request. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Oppose, unless this could be automated on a grand scale, because the existing names are consistent with others within Category:Articles by quality. The nomination is correct in principle, but this would require a wider nomination and a vast amount of work; probably nobody would enjoy nominating all the categories manually, nor updating links afterwards. Perhaps Template:WPBannerMeta could be tweaked to use lowercase c in "-class", but thousands of categories and templates would need to be renamed or replaced.
I guess the article assessment process started out with American-style capitalisation. IMHO it would have been better to use lower-case, but it's not worth changing it now, especially as it is not part of the encyclopedia content itself; i.e. it's separate from the category hierarchy for articles.
As for the UK politics example, the naming is consistent within Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles by quality, and the point of the uppercase P in "Politics” is to match the project name WP:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I think all WikiProjects (see Category:WikiProjects) use a capital letter for their topic, whether or not it is a proper noun. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to clarify, you agree in principle, with the "X-Class" → "X-class" renaming if applied across the entire group of Category:Articles by quality (which is what is proposed here – please see the Redirect, Start and Stub examples above), and are only saying you oppose it because of the amount of work that would be involved, right? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying comment: The suggestion is to apply this change across the entire group of Category:Articles by quality subcategories. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. – Fayenatic London 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this renaming were to go ahead, the User:WP 1.0 bot will need some recoding before the changes were done to handle the new category names. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (i) If you are considering the explicity-named categories in isolation, why should these become different from the norm? (ii) If you are also considering all of the other similarly-named categories, there are over thirty thousand of these and I cannot see any benefit to a mass renaming. Plus, there are templates, bots and scripts that have been written to expect a particular name format, those will all need to be amended too, so you need to inform the maintainers before making any changes, and be certain that they are willing to accommodate your proposal - this is where User talk:Legoktm/March 2019#Possible error with bot? fell over. At least one of the bots which process these cats is presently in a status of "amend only if it is a critical Unbreak Now! issue". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly proposing interpretation "(ii)", not advocating a hodgepodge of inconsistency. It appears that my suggestion is doomed, but only for reasons of logistical difficulty. No one has disputed the merit of the argument. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, I also oppose it because it's a completely unnecessary alteration to capitalisation of a category system whose members should never contain pages in mainspace, so are not directly facing the reader. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:05, 30 July 2019 (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.

Television episodes written by...

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: don't rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming categories starting with "Television episodes written by" to "Television programs written by"
Other categories
Nominator's rationale: Using the word "episodes" limits the categories to episodic television; changing that word to "programs" broadens the potential category members. Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The limit is there for a reason. A series can (and usually do) have many writers, so making the category "Television programs written by" is unhelpful and also does not give any real value information. Ok, so you've tagged the category, and? Does anyone using the category actually know now what specifically D. C. Fontana wrote? The current category does. --Gonnym (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The parent Category:Television programs by writer already exists, and can be used for broader categories where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given above and also because we tend to avoid the use of the term "program(me)" because of the transatlantic problem. Grutness...wha? 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and learn how the British spell the word programme. Only computers have programs here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is for specific episodes. Most series have different writers per episode. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Fayenatic london. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2019 (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:Cow and Chicken

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Category:Cow and Chicken

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_24&oldid=909384136"