Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 20
Appearance
April 20
Category:Portal box templates using obsolete parameters
Category:Santiago, Chile
- Propose renaming Category:Santiago, Chile to Category:Santiago
- Nominator's rationale: To match the parent article, Santiago, which has uncontroversially been the primary topic since mid-2010. I put this up at CFDS, but there were concerns that a category that had been renamed at CfD shouldn't go through CFDS, even though the rationale for renaming last time was to match the parent article (at the time at "Santiago, Chile"). The subcats are currently a mish-mash of "Santiago" and "Santiago, Chile", so whatever the result here is it should apply to the subcats as well. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
Rename bothper nominator. I was the objector to the speedy proposal, but my objection was procedural, and I am happy to support the renaming unless someone offers persuasive reasons to oppose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)- Rename to Category:Santiago de Chile and Category:History of Santiago de Chile. Santiago de Cuba is a fairly large city, so disambiguation preferable, and the "city de country" naming pattern is standard for Spanish-language named cities. Mayumashu (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with you. The Chilean city is the country's capital city and the largest city in the country with a population of 7 million. The Cuban city is not a capital and only has a population of 400,000. I think the Chilean city is far more prominent and that when a reader goes to Category:Santiago they would expect it to it to be about the Chilean city, e.g. the first page of my Google search for "Santiago" gives only results for the Chilean city. Jenks24 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right - the difference here is likely more comparable to that between London and London, Ontario than Birmingham, West Midlands and Birmingham, Alabama Mayumashu (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong oppose whatever the primarity of the article, it is clearly ambiguous, since Santiago_(disambiguation). The category should not be so ambiguous, cleanup is a function required for ambiguous categories. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's a poor argument. Should we rename Category:London and Category:Paris just because London (disambiguation) and Paris (disambiguation) exist? Obviously not. Jenks24 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – it is clearly ambiguous, so Category:Santiago will not do for the category name (cf Category:Birmingham and Birmingham; and quite a few other examples). Oculi (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rename. I've no problem with matching the category name to the article name, despite the potential ambiguity. For every case where this has not been done (Birmingham, etc.) there are half a dozen cases where it is done despite potential ambiguity (Paris, London, etc.). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Birmingham precedent, where the categories have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to keep Alabama articles out of it. Rename to Category:Santiago de Chile, perhaps. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't agree that this is similar to the Birmingham issue. Santiago is a capital city and has a metro population of 7 mil, while the Cuban Santiago is not a capital and has a population of only 400,000. Compare this to the Birmingham precedent, where the English Birmingham has a metro population of 3.5 mil and Birmingham, Alabama has a metro population of 1 million (and neither are capitals). That said, if the consensus is disambiguate, I agree with you and Mayumashu that we should use "Santiago de Chile". Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Match with article. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support If you don't like the amgiguity the article name creates (and I don't either), take it up in the article space. Although I'm convinced the naming is vague, I don't see how it's uniquely vague to the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per the Birmingham example, categories can and are named differently from articlespace, especially in cases of ambiguity, where more primarity is needed for category names than article names. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. A category and its head article never need to be located at different levels of disambiguation from each other — if there's ever a compelling reason to do so, then that's not a sign that the standard practice of matching a category to the name of its primary article needs to be deviated from; it's a sign that one thing or the other is at an incorrect level of disambiguation and needs to be revisited. The need to match the two is still absolute and non-negotiable — you're certainly free to put forward an alternate proposal that the article be redisambiguated to match the category name instead if you wish, but either way the names must match up at the same disambiguation level, with no exceptions ever. Birmingham is a problem that needs fixing, not an example to emulate. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the past practice of CFD, that's certainly a different viewpoint, since many times in the past, CFD has taken the opposite view, that the category should be named at a more disambiguated form, because categories are not articles, and have different concerns than articles. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then CFD is wrong. Categories do not have different concerns than articles do when it comes to naming; if an article and its associated category can't be at the same level of disambiguation at each other, then that's a sign that one of them is sitting at an incorrect level of disambiguation, not a sign that categories and articles don't correctly belong at the same names as each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the past practice of CFD, that's certainly a different viewpoint, since many times in the past, CFD has taken the opposite view, that the category should be named at a more disambiguated form, because categories are not articles, and have different concerns than articles. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose (changing my !vote). "Santiago" is not as extreme a case of ambiguity as the two Birminghams, but nonetheless it is a case of ambiguity between two cities. Using the ambiguous name creates a risk of miscategorisation, and fixing that requires a lot of manual patrolling which doesn't always happen.
Bearcat's attempt to draw an "absolute and non-negotiable" line doesn't fit with Wikipedia's general principle that policies and guidelines permit the occasional exception, Wikipedia:Category names#General_conventions doesn't attempt to create an absolute rule; it just says they should "normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". That reflects the practice in recent years, where a disambiguator is sometimes added to a category name in situations like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exceptions need to have compelling reasons behind them; the fact that exceptions are allowable doesn't mean we can just go around making exceptions willy-nilly. If Santiago is sufficiently unambiguous to be the title of the article about the place in Chile, then it's sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name; if Birmingham is not sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name in its case, then it's not sufficiently unambiguous to be the article title either. There's no compelling reason for such exceptions to be left in place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Booker Prize
- Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize to Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction
- Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize winners to Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winners
- Nominator's rationale: Since 2002, the Man Booker Prize has been sponsored by the Man Group. We tend to go by the modern name of any award; for example, we recently changed Category:Whitbread Awards to Category:Costa Book Awards.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- Rename per nom. (I was the original speedy nominator.) With award categories, we generally go with the current name and make it the same as the article name, which is Man Booker Prize. This does set up "anachronisms" of a sort, but it's better than having multiple categories with different names for the same award. Already one of the subcategories is Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the winners category. We generally do not categorize people by award won, it leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, using current name, Man Booker Prize, of article. This is a major national award in the UK covered for days if not weeks in all the media. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming, to avoid anachronistic categorisation. Keep winners category, because this is one of the major prizes in literary fiction, and a win is definitely a defining characteristic of its winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose the Man thing. Simply change them / keep them as Booker Prize, Category:Booker Prize and Category:Booker Prize winners. With regard to the title, what about the above examples of Mercury Prize and FA Cup? Most of the people in the category have never won the Man Booker Prize because it did not exist untila few years ago. But it has been commonly known as the Booker Prize throughout its existence (note that it is not now called the Man Group Prize and that the "Booker" bit is retained.) The example given by the nominator of Category:Whitbread Awards > Category:Costa Book Awards does not apply to the Booker Prize - it is not now known as the Costa Whitbread Award, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.34 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- The similarity of "Booker" and "Book" has no doubt encouraged the retention of the name long after Booker McConnell ceased to be the sponsor. I suppose this is an imprtant enough award for us to allow an award winners category to be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep; even the article Man Booker Prize refers repeatedly to "The Booker". Instead, nominate sub-cat Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works for renaming without "Man". – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I support renaming Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works to remove the "man", but that should be done in a separate nomination. It's too late to add it to this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China
- Propose deleting: Category:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Both items in this category are already in the much larger Category:Islands of Taiwan. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support "Archipelagoes of ..." is a well established category tree but doesn't really match the geography of the ROC. Taiwan is one large island with very small islands around it, Matsu is more of a political/military subdivision of Fujian Province than a geographic one, and the Spratlys are claimed by a half dozen countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid this isn't the case. The Matsu Islands is a geographic one. The same is true for the Pescadores. 116.48.85.251 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the Archipelagoes by country hierarchy. 116.48.85.251 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Delete the Islands category is good enough. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Merge to Category:Islands of Taiwan. WP consensus has decided that the polity calling itself the Republic of China should be known as Taiwan. The republic is not an archipelago, so that the present name is meaningless. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Or we could merge everything it into Category:Islands of the Republic of China with the future discussion. Either way, this sub-category is not useful at least as currently populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are similar categories for Chile, Canada and the UAE. None of these countries are archipelagic. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the archipelago category for this country. It got a handful of archipelagoes. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Socks? 210.17.196.24 and 116.48.85.251 seem very similar in their way of responding and commenting on this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Comment The lack of apparent meat puppets around a China/Taiwan discussion is novel though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- They tend to get blocked after a while, then fall back to IP editing. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- They tend to get blocked after a while, then fall back to IP editing. – NULL ‹talk›
- Comment The lack of apparent meat puppets around a China/Taiwan discussion is novel though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep since they belong to two different (though interrelated) category trees. Jeremy (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)