Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:The Westies[edit]

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 to Category:Westies (New York gang). The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy from Category:the Westies to Category:Westies; as probably ambiguous with other items listed at Westie. Tim! (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Westies (gang) to make it less ambiguous. The article should probably also be rebnamed, but ambiguously named categories have even larger problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom I created the category, but anything to help the reader is useful to do in WP Hmains (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename—definitely ambiguous for an Auckland or Sydney resident, to the point where I would challenge this gang (that I'd never heard of until this nomination) as being the primary topic for the article name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but suggest "Westies (New York gang)"; Westies (disambiguation) mentions a notorious Irish gang based in Blanchardstown (and now cited there) by the same name. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Westies (New York gang). The main article should also almost certainly be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Westies to match title of parent article. Mainspace consensus is that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Westies is the New York City gang, with all other possible titles with similar names relegated into the melange of Westies (disambiguation), as they have been deemed non-primary usages. If there are editors who believe that this gang is not the primary topic, the place to wage that battle is through the rename process in mainspace. Manufacturing disambiguation titles in category world creates needless confusion and conflict when the article title and category title are deliberately and pointlessly mismatched. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see no evidence there was ever a decision that that was the pirmary usage. It seems to more be how things are by default. It is pretty clear that that is not a primary usage, and I think the page names should be changed. We should not duplicate the unwise decision in article names in categories. This is especially so because ambiguous categories are a worse practice than ambiguous article, in part because category contents are hard to adequately patrol.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a google search is anything to go by, the principal topic for "Westies", by some considerable distance, is West Highland White Terrier, with 97 of the top 100 page returns for "westies -wikipedia". For "westy -wikipedia" there seems to be no one principal topic, with the dog and Volkswagen Westfalia campervans being the main two uses out of many. "Westy's" seems to be a very common name for restaurants and bars. BTW, "westies -wikipedia" returned no page hits for either the gang or Sydney/Auckland inhabitants; for "westy -wikipedia" the gang again did not turn up, but there were two pages for Sydneysiders and one for Aucklanders in the top 100. With Google news searches, the top 20 "westies" included eight pages on Sydney people, seven on dogs, and five from everything else; "westy", in the top 20 news pages, the majority of hits were for different sportsmen who had "Westy" as a nickname (Ryan Westmoreland, Drew Westervelt, Westy Hopkins, Scott West, Brian Westbrook, and Michael West). Again, the gang was nowhere to be seen. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 12 March 2013 (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.

Community organizers or activists[edit]

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 Category:Community organizers to Category:Community activists.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose either
renaming to use "activists"
or renaming to use "organizers":
Nominator's rationale: I encountered these categories when I found Category:American Jewish community activists‎ unparented, and looked for other similar categories. I found three, all of which I added to Category:Community organizers.
So far as I can see, the two concepts of "community activist" and "community organizer" are broadly the same. The head article is at Community organizing, and Category:Community organizers is a subcat of Category:Community organizing, which is an argument in favour of using "organizer"; however "activist" fits neatly with Category:Activists→Category:Activists by type, of which Category:Community organizers has been a subcat since 2007.
If editors agree that the concepts of "community activist" and "community organizer" are close enough to justify categorising them together then we should at least create {{category redirect}}s from the alternative title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "activists". In the UK setting, this sounds a better word to me. [1] suggests that the two words are close enough in the US too. Community organizing uses the term activist a few times in a mostly interchangeable way, even though it mentions one writer who distinguishes these terms. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to activists. This will make it fit better with the overall headings, and just works better as a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to activists keep the activists already so named. This wouold match some of the parents, at least. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the term "organizers" is preferred, the New Zealand one should be spelt "organisers", per local usage/spalling. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to me an activist is a campaigner. An organiser is an officer of a community association. I am not sure quite what these categories are about, but the two concepts are not identical. I am a local officer of a campaigning organisation, which would make me an activist. I am also an officer of certain (moderately) learned societies, where I am probably an organiser. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2013 (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.

Fires by year[edit]

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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30 sub-categories of Category:19th-century fires and 83 sub-categories of Category:20th-century fires
Nominator's rationale: This seems to me like a typical example of over-categorisation: the overwhelming majority of these categories contain between one and three articles, and only in the 1990s do the numbers start to increase. I suppose that categorisation per decade would work well for the 20th-century fires, and I'd agree with such a course of action, but even that would be superfluous in the sparsely populated category for the 19th century. Most of the nominated categories have been created by User:Hugo999, who has been notified; I am in the process of notifying everyone else who has created even just one of them. Waltham, The Duke of 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: these are also part of "19xx disasters", so if they are WP:OCAT then double-upmerging would be a better outcome. Perhaps that should be done selectively, to avoid categorising localised fires as "disasters". – Fayenatic London 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I created a few of these categories while cleaning up the missing categories backlogs, I have to agree that the year-by-year breakdown results in tiny categories that are not particularly helpful for browsing. For me, the most important thing is that categories like Category:1981 fires are upmerged to the Category:1981 disasters so that we keep a path to the article for readers who start browsing from Category:1981. Merging all 19th-century fires to a single category makes sense and the proposal of merging to decades for 20th century fires is probably sensible also although we should keep an open mind about eventually splitting the 1990s or 1980s. Pichpich (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both the fires by century and the disasters by year cats. None of these cats are large enough to justfiy creating such a specific schema. If we got to a point where we had over 1000 in each by century cat, a division might be justified, but I am not sure by year is the best idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no minimum size for a stand alone category. However past consensus shows that around 5 is generally sufficient. Your comment here is suggesting that we use 10 for members of a series category. Yet for series categories, we accept some missing ones and some very small ones. Also, we generally accept that categories that exceed one page (200 entries) should be considered for splitting. So I really question your suggestion to use 1,000 here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The argument presented is that the categories are mostly underpopulated. While true, that does not address the underlying fact that there are notable fires that are not categorized. So the reason for the underpopulation is not that we have not written up the fires, but rather we have failed to categorize them. I looked for the most famous fire in 1906 and it was missing. Then I said lets see what is available for 1901. Without much work, I found that we have at least 5 fires in 1901 that are notable at which point I stopped looking. These are all parts of other articles which is acceptable in lieu of a stub. But the appropriate redirects can and should be created and placed in the correct categories. So I don't think that case has been made that this is over categorization by year. The case has been made that fires are not being categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per JPL, with no prejudice to recreation for years that are demonstrated to have numerous fires. We don't need piles of very small categories, and that's the situation in question. However, I'd suggest first that the centuries be split by decade: put each fire into "[year] disasters" and into "[decade] fires", and split out a year from the decade category once there are several fires in the same year. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pet the reasons listed by Vegaswikian. This is a maintenance problem, not a reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One crucial difference between AfD and CfD is that maintenance of the category tree often requires deletion. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that maintenance issue is generally inserting wrong articles into a category by misclassification. That does not appear to be an issue here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for 20th century; perhaps for 19th century double merge all (not some) to the “by century” for fires and “by year” for disasters. And no “by decade” categories as no other disasters subcategories (explosions and health, industrial natural, transport disasters) or the main category use “by decade”, so using it for fires would be no advantage. There are certainly enough fire articles now for “by year” breakdown in the 20th century.Hugo999 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into categories by decade. I regard these annual categoriues as a hindrance to navigation not an aid. Categorisation by year can be preserved ensuring that it appears in a 1899 in Ohio or 1899 in USA category, which may require a separate upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of categories by decade as hindering not helping finding articles, and is not used elsewhere for disaster subcategories. Decades are useful for works eg films, as films are categorised by year with some subcategories by year eg Category:2001 horror films, but other subcategories eg Category:2000s action films are by decade only. But the decade category is not useful for events by country or U.S. state. For Ohio (see Category:Decades in Ohio) most of the decades categories contain only the years in that decade and are infrequently used for articles. And re Category:Years in Ohio most of the subcategories contain only 1 to 3 articles, plus subcategories for elections by year. Probably true of most states apart from large states like New York or California. Hugo999 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to by-decade categories, but not by-century. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 13 March 2013 (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:Fictional characters by writer[edit]

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 to Category:Literary characters by writer.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all fictional characters are literary, parent category is "Literary characters". Niemti (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should inset fictional in all places. I am not concinved that everyone would see literary as equal to implying fictional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (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:Thunderbirds (TV series) films[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, new standard for works based on works, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17#Works based on Doctor Who for precedent and links to others. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator for clarity and consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Retaining the disambiguator at the end is confusing. The disambiguator "(TV series)" in the capacity it is used on TV articles would seem indicate that the category is restricted to TV Movies, which I take it is not the case? Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed not; all three were shown in cinemas, albeit not very succesfully. "Thunderbirds" can refer to rather a lot of different things. I note your objection but can't think of a better name; "Films based on the TV series Thunderbirds" might be slightly clearer, but would be liable to be renamed later as non-standard, whereas the proposed category name follows the main article Thunderbirds (TV series). – Fayenatic London 19:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this nomination is already on the alerts page for WikiProject Film, but I have just drawn it to their attention with a note at WT:FILM, as well as WP Television at WT:TV as they were not previously alerted. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 4 March 2013 (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:Star Trek films[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and restructure as follows:

The proposals follow the new standard for works based on works; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 18#Works based on Star Trek for precedents and links to others. The cat Category:Star Trek (film series) for the official films will match the lead article Star Trek (film series). – Fayenatic London 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Category:Documentary films about Star Trek does not fit into the proposed renaming of "Star Trek films". Why wouldn't you move it to "Films based on Star Trek", instead of using the see also? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Works based on" is used for fictional works or other entertainment media (music) derived from the original work; "Works about" is for reference & non-fiction works. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't it be better to be "Category:Star Trek in film" instead of "Films based on Star Trek" then? The parent would then be Category:Works concerning Star Trek ; music isn't fiction, and many non-fiction works are for entertainment purposes in the Star Trek milieu. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The name "Foo in film" might work for a category within Category:Films by topic, but this is part of Category:Films based on works, specifically Category:Films based on television series, so my proposed names match that structure. As I understand your point about non-fiction works, I think you are suggesting that "Works based on Foo" and "Works about Foo" should be combined as "works concerning", but we have been separating these, and I still think that is the right thing to do. I agree that navigation links between them are important, which is why I included "see also" links included in the structure above. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems less than optimal that all films in the topic area of Star Trek do not have a master category. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • From another point of view it is better; categories are for navigation, and a sideways "see also" link is a one-click route, compared to two clicks to go up to some (vaguely-named) comprehensive category and down again. In any case, the change will not be worse than the present situation; at the moment the parody films are not in Category:Star Trek films; afterwards, the documentaries will not be in "Films based on Star Trek". – Fayenatic London 23:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment both Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek 2013 are not part of the same film series as the previous films, but a new film series, so the main article should be renamed "Star Trek (film franchise)" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but taking into account the film franchise point above. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; I have moved the page and changed the proposal to match. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. In most cases of multi-media franchises, there will only be official films, so "Films based on Foo" would normally hold them directly (e.g. Category:Films based on Doctor Who). However, as Star Trek has spawned enough fan films and parody films to be categorised separately, it is helpful to distinguish them. Some of the head categories on the current category, e.g. Paramount Films, only belong on the official films category, hence I propose a separate sub-cat for those pages rather than holding them directly in "Films based on Star Trek". – Fayenatic London 13:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all the moves/creations revolving around, and ending at categories called "(film franchise)" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk)
  • Note: this nomination is already on the alerts page for WikiProject Film, but I have just drawn it to their attention with a note at WT:FILM, as well as WP Television at WT:TV as they were not previously alerted. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you rename the Star Trek fan films category, you will also need to rename the other subcategories under Category:Fan films. I am pointing this out because there isn't a notice on those category pages: Category:Batman fan films, Category:Firefly (TV series) fan films, Category:Star Wars fan films.--Duesouthfan (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I intend to nominate these later, if nobody else gets there first. I thought it would be useful to first complete the Category:Star Trek structure as an example to follow where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The new names are better and more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (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:Robbery[edit]

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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I think the reason for this singular and plural form merger is pretty obvious. Also need to merge Category:Bank robberies‎ and Category:Bank robbery. If singular form is chosen, need to rename Category:Train robberies‎ to singular. If plural is chosen, there are several categories such as Robbery by year that will need to be renamed for consistency as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 27 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_27&oldid=1126714994"