Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 8#

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Tablet PC to :Category:Microsoft Tablet PC

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article Microsoft Tablet PC and to avoid confusion with parent {{cl|Tablet computers}}. Singular "Microsoft Tablet PC" is correct because in addition to being a class of devices, the name refers to a set of specification. Singular is preferable to the plural because "Microsoft" is there primarily to disambiguate the common name "Tablet PCs," and the long-form, plural "Microsoft Tablet PCs" is almost never used in writing. ({{cl|Tablet PCs (Microsoft)}} would work too, but there was no consensus for the corresponding move in mainspace.) Pnm (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support quite clearly highly ambiguous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Consensus is against the move as proposed. Any alternative proposals to standardize the category can be made by opening a separate discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming

:: :Category:Coastline of Australia to :Category:Coasts of Australia

:: :Category:Coastline of New Zealand to :Category:Coasts of New Zealand

:: :Category:English coast to :Category:Coasts of England

:: :Category:Northern Ireland coast to :Category:Coasts of Northern Ireland

:: :Category:Scottish coast to :Category:Coasts of Scotland

:: :Category:Coast of Wales to :Category:Coasts of Wales

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disputed speedy. The dominant form of the subcategories of :Category:Coasts by country is currently Coasts of Foo so this would bring the nominated categories into line. There are also the related categories :Category:Welsh coast and countryside, :Category:Scottish coast and countryside, :Category:English coast and countryside and :Category:Northern Ireland coast and countryside. Tim! (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Speedy discussion}}

• C2C convention of :Category:Coasts by country:
• :Category:Coastline of Australia to :Category:Coasts of Australia
• :Category:Coastline of New Zealand to :Category:Coasts of New Zealand
• :Category:English coast to :Category:Coasts of England
• :Category:Northern Ireland coast to :Category:Coasts of Northern Ireland
• :Category:Scottish coast to :Category:Coasts of Scotland
• :Category:Coast of Wales to :Category:Coasts of Wales Tim! (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:Not a speedy - the change from singular to plural changes the meaning. Please take to CFD for a proper discussion. (I would support a Speedy if the singular was retained.)Mais oui! (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:*Please clarify if this objection applies to all 6 parts or just the last 4. Tim! (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

::All 6. (In fact, I quite like the "Coastline of" format of the Antipodean ones -> certainly worthy of having a wee CFD discussion, in order to find the best naming system.) Mais oui! (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:Moved to full CFD. Tim! (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Oppose – if we look at :Category:English coast, almost all the subcats would be wholly inappropriate as subcats of :Category:Coasts of England. :Category:English coast should not be in :Category:Coasts by country at all, so the rationale of the nom is flawed (and this applies to all 6). (The entire coastal category system appears to be a collection of ill-considered pigs' ears.) Occuli (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would support standardisation of these category names but they do seem to contain a mish-mash of articles. Most are geographic/landform; but some are clearly economic/human which should be in a different tree, rather than in landforms of foo. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for 3 reasons: a) and most importantly, these categories contain articles that are not just about "coasts of" whatever, eg. articles about marine reserves and articles about reefs. b) our common name and verifiability rules suggest that the singular "[http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Scottish+coast%22&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=en Scottish coast]" / "[http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Scottish+coast%22&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=en#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Coast+of+Scotland%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Coast+of+Scotland%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=33618l33618l0l34014l1l1l0l0l0l0l87l87l1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e2b3ca4c22f1624c&biw=1843&bih=1010 Coast of Scotland]" is far more common usage than the plural "Scottish coasts" / "Coasts of Scotland" etc. c) the change from singular to plural actually changes the meaning of the term. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep -- Where there is a satisfactory adjective, there is no reason why it should not be used. I see no reason why coasts of (or fooian coasts) should not exist as an omnibus category for a wide variety of features on or close to the coast. England and Scotland have each have one continuous coast. This contrasts with USA, where the Pacific coast is not linked to the Atlantic/Gulf coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The plural coasts seems strange to me. Most of these countries have a single continuous coastline. New Zealand has several islands, but I have never heard anyone talk about multiple coasts.-gadfium 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as prefer :Category:Coastline of Australia etc; more suitable for the geographic/landform subcategories as stated above. If Australia is changed from Coastline the 7 state/teritory subcategories eg :Category:Coastline of Tasmania should also be changed. But if the opposite change is made, consider merging the overlapping category :Category:United Kingdom coast and countryside etc into :Category:Coastline of the United Kingdom as well. Hugo999 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per argument from Mais oui and others - SatuSuro 05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Acupuncture points to :Category:Acupuncture

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only contains two articles: Acupuncture point and List of acupuncture points. The parent would seem to be adequate for the purpose. Tim! (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Thames Path}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorise towns by roads than run through them, we definitely should not do so for footpaths. Tim! (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Repurpose -- This has clearly been produced by some one who does not understand that categories are not bullet points. Most of the contents are already in Thames-related categories. We already have :Category:Locks on the River Thames,‎ :Category:Populated places on the River Thames‎, and :Category:Weirs on the River Thames‎. However we do not appear to have :Category:Bridges over the River Thames‎, which would be a useful category. Accordingly, I would suggest renaming the category to that and purging it of the rest of its contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Peterkingiron was looking for :Category:Bridges across the River Thames and :Category:Pedestrian bridges across the River Thames. As Tim says, we don't need to categorise places/buildings/bridges/visitor attractions by the fact that the Thames Path runs past them/over them. Thames Path is sufficiently categorised already (including in this category's parent categories) so no upmerge is needed. Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 all. Jafeluv (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Texas Civil War regiments to :Category:Texas Confederate Civil War regiments

:Nominator's rationale: Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_Confederate_regiments_categories this discussion]. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Arkansas Civil War regiments to :Category:Arkansas Confederate Civil War regiments

:Nominator's rationale: Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_Confederate_regiments_categories this discussion]. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Alabama Civil War regiments to :Category:Alabama Confederate Civil War regiments

:Nominator's rationale: Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_Confederate_regiments_categories this discussion]. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

::::I have combined these three items because they raise exactly the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- It is useful to show which side they were on. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

comment if so, why not do all 13 of them at once, not just these 3 Hmains (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The remainder can be sent through speedy renaming once a consensus is achieved here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Irish Americans by city to :Category:Irish American history by city

::Category:Irish in Baltimore, Maryland to :Category:Irish American history in Baltimore, Maryland

::Category:Irish in Chicago, Illinois to :Category:Irish American history in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Greek Americans by city to :Category:Greek American history by city

::Category:Greeks in Baltimore, Maryland to :Category:Greek American history in Baltimore, Maryland

::Category:Greek people in Omaha, Nebraska to :Category:Greek American history in Omaha, Nebraska

::Category:Greek Americans by state to :Category:Greek American history by state

::Category:Greeks in Maryland to :Category:Greek American history in Maryland

::Category:Greeks in New York to :Category:Greek American history in New York

:Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. These categories do not hold biographies as implied by the current name, but articles on history, historic locations etc. There are more similar categories within :Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by city and :Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by state, but only :Category:African American history by city, :Category:African American history by state and :Category:Native American history by state use the word "history" at present. I propose to speedy the others if this set is agreed.

• Note that a possible alternative is to use "culture" rather than "history". The parent :Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by city is currently in :Category:American culture by city rather than :Category:Histories of cities in the United States. There are currently non-historical articles on recent culture in e.g. :Category:Greeks in Baltimore, Maryland (three articles about Greeks in The Wire; also some some biographies of leading people. Overall, I think it would be better to re-purpose the categories using "history" and recategorise any articles required.
• Or do nothing: perhaps no rename is needed, but simply to state on each category page the purpose of these "Ethnic groups" categories as covering history and culture but excluding biographies. What's driving my nomination is the need to distinguish categories for individual people from history and/or culture. For comparison, the navigation templates in :Category:North America ethnic group templates are likewise a mixture of history and culture and these seem to work fine. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• keep -- If it were about biogrpahies, I have no dount some one would have insisted on making it "Foo people in Boo". However the subject matter may be the history, culture, or other attributes of an ethnic community. The present ttiles are suitably vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Historic structures in the United States}}

:{{Lc|Historic structures in Texas}}

:Nominator's rationale: An orphaned and neglected category with one article Seguin Walnut Springs Park, which isn't a structure. Duplicates the well-established and populated :Category:Historic buildings in the United States. Appears to have been created just to provide a container for the Texas subcat, with its lone article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – the creator of the article has idiosyncratic views on categorisation, so the 2 categories should be empty. Occuli (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Cold War documentary films about nuclear war and weapons}}

:Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary intersection category for nukes and the Cold War from User:Target for Today (his almost identical :Category:Cold War documentary films about nuclear command and control is also up for deletion). In this case, I'd point out that the subcategory :Category:Documentary films about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contains films about nukes which have been used in a hot war, and most of the rest of :Category:Documentary films about nuclear war and weapons are Cold War-related. The nominated category adds another layer that does not aid navigation for readers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 C1. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|School articles that need to be wikified}}

:Nominator's rationale: No pages link to this category page; this leads me to think it is not ever going to be populated. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 to :Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Historic district contributing structures of Adams County, Pennsylvania}}

:Nominator's rationale: A very oddly named category for the structures in Adams County that "contribute" to there being a Gettysburg historic site in the county, from what I can tell. Completely unnecessary imo and an outlier to our existing cat structure. Delete. Contents are already adequately characterized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge one might have :Category:Historic structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania but I doubt that differs much from :Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania. If so, delete or merge to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm, I see we also have the almost empty :Category:Historic structures in the United States. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Do look at this old discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Vegaswikian rightly points out a precedent from merging "historic structures in foo" to "Buildings and structures in foo". This precedent should be followed. I have thus amended my vote above to "merge". The US category probably needs to be nominated for similar treatment. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: contributing properties are identified when historic districts are added to the National Register of Historic Places. - Eureka Lott 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• That's interesting, I didn't think to check if there was a main article for contributing properties. However, I've worked on a variety of historic district categories over the years (as have you, I'm sure) and I've never seen this term used in a cat name for such structures or buildings in these areas, nor have I seen any need for such an addition. This is an outlier from an editor who's exhibited a shakey grasp of category structure (imo) and I'm loath to start building a contributing properties tree based on this one county. But I guess I could be persuaded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• It also raises questions about notability. I believe that being placed on the National Register is generally accepted as a way of establishing notability, but what about contributing properties? Does that listing alone merit an article? I don't know. - Eureka Lott 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Based on contributing properties, I don't think there's any question that such structures would be worthy of articles. I'm just concerned about what we'd call the category grouping them. Until now, it's been the name of the historic district itself, and not "contributing structures of foo." Now, this "contributing structures" term seems to be American: I don't think it would or should affect the cat names for other countries. Do editors want to support a broad-based change to all categories for US historic district structure articles based on this one outlier? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• If I'd been paying closer attention, I would have realized that we already have :Category:Historic district contributing properties. It looks like there hasn't been much interest in creating geography-based subcategories. - Eureka Lott 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yikes. I did check to see if there was this. Don't know how I missed it. I'm ready to withdraw this nom, if no one else feels strongly that it should go ahead, perhaps in some amended form. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• The question still remains, is this defining? Any buildings in this tree obviously have articles and hence they are notable. The fact that they are included here is coincidence if someone making an additional NRHP nomination to include a broad area and these buildings are in one of those areas. Now, even if these buildings are defining for the district, does that make this category defining for the building? I think not. Since most, and in some cases likely all, of the buildings in a district are not likely to get articles, navigation is likely to be best supported by the main article on the district or in a few cases a navigation template. So, Delete. I don't see a merge as being needed since NRHP articles tend to have ample categories, so losing this one should not be an issue. However if the closing admin decides that a merge is better, I can live with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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: Speedy rename per criterion C2B (disambiguation) - non-controversial move. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Washington Senators to :Category:Washington Senators (baseball)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is also a Washington Senators (NFL) that we need to disambiguate from. There is no ideal article name to match to in this case since the baseball team has had a number of different incarnations. See Washington Senators, which is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• This area needs some serious cleanup. There are at least four different incarnations of the team in this single category. Once the contents are straightened up, this category can either be deleted or converted to a disambiguation category. - Eureka Lott 18:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that it needs cleanup but not with the delaying the rename. The cleanup appears not to be imminent—the category has existed since 2005. For the time being, until such cleanup commences, it really needs to be disambiguated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I can probably help clean this up, but I think it would be good to hear what others have to say. - Eureka Lott 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support some sort of rename and resort. This needs to be done soon, since there are also state senators from Washington state, and US senators from Washington state... 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Rename per 76.65, hopelessly ambiguous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

----

: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.