Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

July 30

Category:Musical sibling duos

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Musical sibling duos to Category:Sibling musical duos

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match existing Category:Sibling musical trios. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to make title clearer and match corresponding category. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (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:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom to Category:Ethnic, national and immigrant groups in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Suggesting rename to more accurately reflect the contents of the category, as discussed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of many in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by country, itself a subcat of Category:Ethnic groups. Occuli (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename as category is part of a well-defined parent category. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it's not well-defined though. What constitutes an ethnic group is hard to define, although many of the groups included in the category clearly are not ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that "ethnic" is a vague term (one on hand "Londoner" and "Northern" are valid an ethnic groups but not quite what this category means, on the other "Australians in the United Kingdom" may not normally be thought of as an ethnic group) but it is the established term for this set of articles on Wikipedia. Therefore, if the change goes ahead, the parent and sibling categories will need to be changed as well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, I agree. I should have thought about this more carefully before proposing renaming only this category. I'd be happy for the discussion to be closed now. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is, but "Ulster Scots" is not a term used in UK, only abroad, so that this should not appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli and Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A broad discussion about a better name for the whole tree would be worthwhile, but the issue really isn't unique to the UK and doesn't warrant a special renaming for the UK category alone. Keep as is for now, but please do feel free to propose a general naming discussion to review the tree as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Port Technology

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Port Technology to Category:Port infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: Rename per similar Category:Airport infrastructure. We could Upmerge to parent category, instead, but this would seem to be an area where the category has room for growth, if editors can shed some light on the mysterious inner working of ports and harbours, so I'd suggest a rename instead.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to match other similar transportation modes. Others can help populate this category, as I just did. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (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:Web television

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Web television to Category:Internet television

Nominator's rationale: These categories duplicate the same subject. I can see no real difference between Internet television and Web television, although currently both do have separate articles on Wikipedia. I suggest Internet television as the category that should be merged into as the term has a slightly wider remit. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical, but needs looking into. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (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:Web television series

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Web television series to Category:Internet television series

Nominator's rationale: Web television series is a duplicate of Internet television series, mostly populated with the same articles. I can see no real difference between Web television and Internet television, although both have separate articles on Wikipedia at present. Internet television series is currently the most populated category and the term has a slightly wider remit than Web televison, so I suggest the web should be merged into internet in this case. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (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:Coloured South African people

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coloured South African people - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article has been around for over a year, and inn that time only three names have been listed (some have been removed). Article is questionable, possibly even racist in its categorisation. magnius (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last discussion. There is a whole subcat of Cape Coloureds with 82 pages. What, recent South African history possibly racist? (Whether the category should be added to an article is a matter for the article.) Occuli (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't solve the problem of there only being three people in this category, an issue that hasn't been resolved for over a year. magnius (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply being underpopulated is not a valid reason to delete. Better to add to Category:Underpopulated categories with a popcat tag, if you don't wish to help populate it.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Coloureds are a clearly defined social group in South Africa, predominantly concentrated in the Cape (hence the subcategory having most of the articles). This is a natural part of the ethnic categorisation of South African people and should not be singled out. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep still a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is the correct term for an ethnic group in South Africa. However, it might be worth renaming the category for clarity, so future wikipedians can see at a glance that it represents a specific group. Category:Coloured people of South Africa, Category:Coloureds in South Africa or even South African Coloureds might be more clearly read as a specific ethnic group as this is not quite the way the same term would be used in American English. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a racist categorization to me. JBsupreme (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a racial categorization. Did you bother to read Coloured? Are you at all familiar with South African society? It is not the same as, say, using this term to describe an African American person. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is still an historical correct term, as described in the relevant articles. History does not disappear because it is inconvenient to someone. The purpose of WP categories is to provide navigation to articles; this category serves that purpose. Hmains (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This was the correct term in the apartheid era. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and per the Oct 2008 discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 4 August 2009 (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:Gate news items

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 (both as re-created material and per discussion here). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gate news items - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is confusingly named and is written more like an article. As such it is duplicative of the long-existing List of scandals with "-gate" suffix article. And the "-gate" practice is better handled with a list than a category, since in many cases the "-gate" form is not the primary means by which a scandal or controversy is known. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIAL and WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion - as recreated content. Otherwise delete per Shawn and nom. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT what "CATEGORY:" is it called. Would it be preferred that this category be renamed '''[[Category:Scandals ending in -gate]]''' If so, then by all means rename this, but until a C-A-T-E-G-O-R-Y exists, it is absolutely inadequate to point to an article.

Please educate me as to how to make the listing work, including the secondary portion, as in [[article Articlename#sectionName]].

From looking at the article, it would seem that the first step is to convert the article into a Category. On second thought, it would seem that the article serves a higher purpose than a simple category, since it gives some specifics.

As has been noted elsewhere, sometimes a -gates "scandal" is better known by another name, as is truly the case here. In the meantime my vote is to allow "history" play its role. Speedy delete has already been written up negatively by others. There is so much else in Wiki that needs the talented attention that this simple item has drawn. Trink24 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't entirely understand your comment but the previous posters are saying that no category of any kind is appropriate to this subject. A list already exists for this information and can be included in the appropriate articles under the "See also" heading (or similar). The list replaces the category. It is not very useful to have a specific category to group "-gate" articles. Any use there is in having this information is better provided by the list than the category. On the other hand, having both may provide redundancy and an alternate approach to the information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to Category:Scandals with "-gate" suffix to match the list. I have no strong objection to the category itself but it does approach overcategorisation and, by definition, it would never do much more than repeat a small section of Category:Scandals. If it is kept, matching the naming convention of the associated list would be more helpful that its current, and quite confusing, name. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT by shared name. We don't need a category for things whose only commonality is that they bore a nickname based on the truly irritating practice of suffixing "-gate" to another word to denote SCANDAL! — the existing list is wholly sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (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:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin

suggest deleting

Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin - Template:Lc1

suggest upmerging

Nominator's rationale: I think this is refining ethnicities by nationality one step too far, and would prefer if this is not the precedent. Have not listed for Mexican, German, Italian, Jewish, and Irish Americans as they help break up lists that are very long, but perhaps they should be upmerged too. The better way, I believe, to break up Category:Asian American sportspeople and Category:European American sportspeople is by individual sport, as has been done for Category:African American sportspeople Mayumashu (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All The structure is well-populated and well-defined, and should be expanded where appropriate to add entries to the existing categories and create / populate new categories within this structure. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are these intersections even notable in most cases per WP:CATGRS? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It is common practise here to divide people by their specific origins. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the combination of their specific origin with their occupation itself represents an encyclopedically defining trait that could pass WP:CATGRS. Not if it merely represents a "List of people who happen to be both X and Y". Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Subdividing the parents by individual sport would be better than subdividing them by specific nationality, as the specific-nationality cats do fail WP:CATGRS. Hungarian-Americans and Swedish-Americans are not treated noticeably differently in American sports — broad racial groupings (i.e. white vs. black vs. Asian) certainly make a difference in how people are received and treated in the sports world, but individual country of ancestral origin really, truly doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Canadian sportspeople

Suggest merging

Suggest deleting

Category:Chinese Canadians by occupation

Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation. If we subdivide ever ethnicity by nationality by occupation, then we will have a lot of thinly populated cat pages, and lacking much significance Mayumashu (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is common practise here to divide people by their specific origins. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the combination of their specific origin with their occupation itself represents an encyclopedically defining trait that could pass WP:CATGRS. Not if it merely represents a "List of people who happen to be both X and Y". Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. While a valid case can be made for the broad sets of "Black Canadian" and "Asian Canadian" categories, there's very little apparent value in defining them more specifically than that — while there's an encyclopedic difference between how broadly-Asian and broadly-white sports figures are received by the larger Canadian culture (racism, yadda yadda), there's very little discernible difference within the Asian group in terms of how Chinese vs. Japanese vs. Vietnamese vs. Korean athletes are treated. Per WP:CATGRS, such a category should not be created for the sole purpose of having a list of people who happen to meet the criteria — the category has to represent something that's itself a defining trait in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]