Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeremy Hopkins (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 28 April 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
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)[reply]
  • Support. Match with article. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
Oppose both for anachronistic reasons. Most of these writers have never won the "Man Booker Prize" since it has only been in existence for about 8 years. Many of them had died before the "Man Booker Prize" even came into existence. MaybeMan Booker Prize should be moved to Booker Prize as well since it has been known as this throughout its existence and is still commonly known as this today? Note that Wikipedia has Mercury Prize, not Barclaycard Mercury Prize, and FA Cup, not FA Cup with Budweiser as these, also English-based, events are currently known but have not been known throughout their history.
I sort of agree with the above. The name has been stable for a few years but it's still a sponsorship so it's inherently volatile. Moving an article as sponsorship shifts might make sense since it's likely to become the common search term but I prefer keeping the category at a title which is not era-dependent. Creating a category redirect might make sense (and might also make everyone happy). Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]