Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 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 (C2D). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Zonemedia to :Category:Chello Zone

:Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed years ago. Bbb2007 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this category is eligible for speedy renaming under criterion C2D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 9 February 2013 (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 after selective upmerge to {{cl|Royal Air Force}}, where this is defining. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Military equipment of the Royal Air Force}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. We dont normally categorise by user MilborneOne (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; the entire by-user trees should really go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that a military bought some of a mass produced product is not defining for the mass produced product.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reply. There will be many cases where it is daft to categorise by user (e.g. AK-47, MiG-21), but in some cases the user clearly is a defining characteristic of the equipment. This category present several examples.
  :Category:Military equipment of the Royal Air Force contains 9 articles. Five of them (Cormorant Network, Turbinlite, NIVO, British Power Boat Company Type Two 63 ft HSL, RAPTOR) are about equipment developed solely for United Kingdom (UK) forces and used solely by them. One other page (Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod) is about a piece of equipment developed for British forces and used only by them and one other country.
  So the presumption that this a set of stock equipment in use by many forces is not true with most of these pages. This is basically a set of equipment custom-made for the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• However AK-47s are just as easy to put in these categories as anything else. The user of the equitment is not a characteristic of the equitment itself. It may be worth including in the article, but categorizing by it will just lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• On the contrary, topics such as NIVO & British Power Boat Company Type Two 63 ft HSL are absolutely defined by the fact that they were RAF equipment rather than Luftwaffe or USAF. It is one of their most significant chracteristics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• The catch is that those are some items - but not all, and "Equipment of the RAF" implies all. "Equipment developed for the RAF" might work - but "Equipment built in the United Kingdom" is probably best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I had a brainwave while on a burger run, at least for the Type Two. Given that they were commissioned naval vessels, they fall into the :Category:Ships by navy tree. Hence, following the precedent of :Category:Ships of the United States Air Force and :Category:Ships of the British Army, :Category:Ships of the Royal Air Force has been created, as for ships, service is very defining. As for the others, such as Nivo, Upmerge to :Category:Royal Air Force might work? Alternatively (and/or), :Category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom, as items created specifically for a country could squeak by as "defining" (note "created for" not "used by"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - This category doesn't state what it's inclusion criteria are, but judging by the articles that are in it (and the articles that are not in it - e.g. Spitfire, Blue Steel) it's not a category for all articles about equipment used by the RAF, only for those that don't (for various reasons) fit neatly elsewhere in the category structure. For example the HSL article, being about a boat type, rather than about a ship can't go in :Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom and the Cormorant Network article doesn't tell us enough to categorize it by country of origin. Having what is, in effect, a miscellaneous category isn't a good way to categorize things. Before deleting this category we should check that all the articles in it are in whatever more suitable categories can be found - as a minimum they should all be in a by-period category. DexDor (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It has unclear inclusion criteria, but is a "equipment by user" type category that I understand we are supposed to be moving away from. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:26, 14 February 2013 (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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Puerto Rican nuns}}

:Nominator's rationale: There is already an overlapping category. Eyesnore (pending changes) 23:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

::Which is? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Category:Puerto Rican Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns.

:::Delete per nom. No need for two entries for Isolina Ferré. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and upmerge the much longer named sub-cat. In common speech all these people are called nuns, and I think we should categorize that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and upmerge per JPL and WP:COMMONAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and upmerge :Category:Puerto Rican Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns per JPL and WP:COMMONAME. That one has an unnecessarily long name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

::furhter comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The nominator seems not to have done any checking before commenting, and the other editors also seem not to have checked before commenting. :(
  These are not overlapping categories; they are a category and its sub-category. There are two category trees here:

:#{{cl|Nuns by nationality}}, for nuns of any religion (including Anglicans and buddhists)

:#its subcategory {{cl|Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality}}, for the Roman Catholic nuns

:In this case, Isolina Ferré is correctly categorised in :Category:Puerto Rican Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns, which is quite properly a subcat of {{cl|Puerto Rican nuns}}.

:The convention of {{cl|Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality}} was set at CfD 2012 April 5. That was 10 months ago, so it would be quite fine to propose a renaming of those verbosely-named categories ... but it's very bad practice to delete one of its subcats because editors have an aversion to an established naming convention.

:I don't know why some editors want to rip apart a chunk of the category hierarchy, but the proposal to upmerge would remove Isolina Ferré from both :Category:Puerto Rican Roman Catholics and :Category:American Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. So if this is to be done, it needs to be a multiple upmerge ... but these single-item categories are acceptable per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I've had a pretty bad week IRL so my brain has been skipping the occasional cylinder... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Hope the next week is a better one for you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- My support above is criticised on the basis that not all religious sisters are nuns. I am not a Catholic and this is too nice a distinction for me to be familiar with. Perhaps, the right answer is reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I still don't see why you want to make this category an exception to the wider structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• This is the category that was nominated. I see no reason to let poorly named categories stand when they are brought up for discussion, but tagging a huge number of categories tends towards the tedious. All the claims to the contrary have never really been convincing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reply. JPL, first a substantive point: you appear to be unconcerned about the fact that your proposed merge would remove Puerto Rican RC nuns from any wider category of RC nuns. Why do you want to do that?
  Next, the procedural issue. You may think the category is poorly named, but you have offered no reason to suggest that it is any more or less poorly-named than any of the other similarly-named subcats of {{cl|Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality}}. The category system would be unmanageable unless we had naming conventions, and you are proposing to break a naming convention without any reason offered for doing so. If you want to change the convention, then do a group nomination of all the categories involved. And there's no need to complain that it is tedious to tag them: if you find that too much hassle, and don't want to use WP:AWB, then make a request at WP:BOTREQ.
  That way, we both maintain consistency and ensure that all interested editors are notified, which will not be the case if one category is nominated as a stalking horse. If you want an example of why it is disruptive to try to rename only part of a set without nominating all the rest, please see the recent example of {{cl|Tipperary hurlers}}. It was renamed at CFD January 3 in a cherry-picked one-category nomination, but followup group nominations at CFD Jan 17 and CFD Jan 26 met strong opposition, leading to an ANI thread, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gaelic_games&diff=536955499&oldid=536949057#Conclusion_of_GAA_categorisation_discussion further discussion at the WikiProject], and finally a new CFD on Feb 9 to overturn the original. Much better to simply do a group nomination in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:Strong Oppose per BHG. One, not all religious sisters are nuns. Two, not all nuns are Catholic.Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep This is a general, not religion specific cat, the other category is a religion specific category. I still think it should be renamed but I see why we need both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per BHG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 13 March 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Mosques in North Africa}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category just adds another category level, without adding any real benefit. Sufficient to have an overarching category for Africa, with all of the individual nations directly contained in it. Note that all subcategories are also still in the main Africa category. Dawynn (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete we generally avoid "North Africa" categories. For one thing, do we include Sudan? My person opinion would be that now that South Sudan is its own country, we probably should.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. No need to merge, as all subcats are already in "Africa" parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary level divisions of Africa. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (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 without merge. delldot ∇. 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Computer wargames to :Category:War video games

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Aren't these the same? Or are there some text-based computer games with no video component? Goustien (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Computer wargames" are, well, wargames played on a computer, like Harpoon. "War video games" are "video games set in a war environment", like Company of Heroes. Basically the former is a simulation, while the later is a "game". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• oppose but... :Category:Computer wargames is accurately named and should stay as it is. :Category:War video games is a complete mess and contains every kind of video game having anything to do with war, from shooters (first and third person) to :Category:Grand strategy video games, which might be merged back into :Category:Computer wargames. I'm not sure how to approach sorting this out but merging these two categories is not a good first step. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge however I think the War video games needs a rethinking of title and scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• oppose per Bushranger. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (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 to the "People from Foo (London borough)" format. This may be a bit of a WP:BOLD close but I see no clear dissent to this option, so to boldly go and all that. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• :Category:People from Barking and Dagenham (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham – C2C: per :Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Tim! (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• :Category:People from Westminster (district) to :Category:People from the City of Westminster
• :Category:People from Wandsworth (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Wandsworth
• :Category:People from Waltham Forest (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Waltham Forest
• :Category:People from Tower Hamlets (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
• :Category:People from Sutton (London borough) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Sutton
• :Category:People from Southwark (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Southwark
• :Category:People from Richmond upon Thames (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
• :Category:People from Redbridge (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Redbridge
• :Category:People from Newham (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Newham
• :Category:People from Merton (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Merton
• :Category:People from Lewisham (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Lewisham
• :Category:People from Lambeth (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Lambeth
• :Category:People from Kingston upon Thames (district) to :Category:People from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
• :Category:People from Kensington and Chelsea (district) to :Category:People from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
• :Category:People from Islington (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Islington
• :Category:People from Hounslow (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Hounslow
• :Category:People from Hillingdon (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Hillingdon
• :Category:People from Havering (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Havering
• :Category:People from Harrow (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Harrow
• :Category:People from Haringey (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Haringey
• :Category:People from Hammersmith and Fulham (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
• :Category:People from Hackney (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Hackney
• :Category:People from Greenwich (district) to :Category:People from the Royal Borough of Greenwich
• :Category:People from Enfield (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Enfield
• :Category:People from Ealing (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Ealing
• :Category:People from Croydon (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Croydon
• :Category:People from Camden (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Camden
• :Category:People from Bromley (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Bromley
• :Category:People from Brent (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Brent
• :Category:People from Bexley (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Bexley
• :Category:People from Barnet (district) to :Category:People from the London Borough of Barnet
• Oppose as speedy. In the cases I have checked, none of the sibling categories follow the proposed format, so that is not a convention.
  The naming of these categories is a bit of a mess, and the proposal here may be a good idea ... but there are several conflicting conventions here, and it needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:Moved from speedy due to an objection. Tim! (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, pending further discussion. There are 3 different naming conventions at play here:

:#The "London Borough of Foo" convention of the parent categories in {{cl|London boroughs}}, such as :Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

:#The "Bar of Foo" convention of the sibling categories under each borough, such as {{cl|Buildings and structures in Barking and Dagenham‎}}, {{cl|Districts of Barking and Dagenham‎}}, {{cl|Education in Barking and Dagenham‎ }}, etc

:#The "People from Foo (district)" convention of {{cl|People by district in England}}

:I can see no case for changing these categories to match the format of the borough categories, unless the siblings within each borough are also changed. At least there is a certain consistency in the current arrangement, because all the subcats of {{cl|People by district in England}} have the same format, and all the subcats of each London Borough (part from the people) have the same format. This proposal introduces a third variation, which is not a Good Idea.

:There is a 4th possibility. At CFD in June 2012 I proposed standardising all the subcats of {{cl|London Borough of Sutton}} on "X of Sutton (district)", but the preference there was "X of Sutton (London Borough)". I can see the merit of that outcome, but by using a parenthesised disambigiuator it is inapplicable to the boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham which need no disambiguation.

:I don't think that there is any neat solution here, tho we may find some improvement on the current mishmash. I will notify WT:LONDON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

::The current names are ambiguous because many boroughs have a district with the same name as the borough: eg Lewisham and London Borough of Lewisham, Greenwich and Royal Borough of Greenwich. The sibling categories also share the ambiguity problem and will also need renaming but objecting just to maintain consistency with an ambiguous naming convention is what is actually "not a Good Idea". Tim! (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

:::My concern is simply that any change should increase consistency, rather than reduce it ... or at least maintain a level of consistency.

:::So if we are going to move to a new format for London Borough categories, let's choose one that will work for all such categories, rather than just one subset of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

::::It is not a new format as it used by the parent categories, carrying on a long tradition of matching category names with article names. Tim! (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Actually, it is a new format. We have no other categories named "Foo in the London Borough of Bar". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• REname but to the form :Category:People from Wandsworth (London Borough). I chose this third one as my example, as "City of Westminster" will be better than alternatives; likewise for Royal Boroughs. "Barking and Dagenham" (with its dual name) could perhaps be left without a disambiguator, the fact that it relates to that London Borough being explained in a headnote; likewise Hammersmith and Flhma with its double name. Elsewhere a disambiguator is needed, becasue the name applies both to the London Borough and the district of it from which it takes its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Question Why not use the uncapitalised form :Category:People from Wandsworth (London borough), to match what has already been put in place for all the subcats of :Category:London Borough of Sutton? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest :Category:People from Foo, London. MRSC (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::Greenwich, London still does not clear up the ambiguity between Greenwich and Royal Borough of Greenwich. Tim! (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I see Sutton has already been amended. Shall we follow that for the others, i.e. "Category:People from Foo (London borough)". MRSC (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rename all to "Category:People from Foo (London borough)" per MRSC and per the precedent already set for Sutton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::As this form is gaining some traction I will also agree to this format as it removes the ambiguity. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question: does the emerging consensus include Westminster, the Royal Boroughs and the compound names? i.e. :Category:People from Westminster (London borough), :Category:People from Greenwich (London borough), :Category:People from Kensington and Chelsea (London borough), :Category:People from Kingston upon Thames (London borough), :Category:People from Barking and Dagenham (London borough), :Category:People from Hammersmith and Fulham (London borough)? We could use all or some of the alternatives - the first 4 as originally nominated, and missing out the disambiguator for the last two. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

: I think the consensus includes all of them. If we were to treat certain boroughs differently for being unambiguous we would also have to do it for Brent, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, and then there are some less clear cases such as Camden vs. Camden Town or Haringey vs. Harringay. MRSC (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (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: All speedily deleted as subpages of a project deleted under G5. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)