Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 4

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: Upmerge Canadian nicknames to both parents, remove US nickames. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian regional nicknames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Regional nicknames and Category:Canadian people.- choster (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/Delete upmerge for Newfie per Choster; delete for Dry sider as it describes Americans. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (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.

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: Upmerge subcats then delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge subcats of Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent to Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity, and Delete. Actually worse than Category:People of Black African descent (nominated below). - jc37 20:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and Delete, as nom. - jc37 20:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and Delete as suggested. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Upmerge/Delete Because these are fictional characters, their description by the author would prevent WP:OR (except for some comic book characters) and there is no WP:BLP issue. Not sure how it's defining though. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion -- WE need a category for Black people of unspecified ethnic descent -- for where the author does not state what it is. Upmerging the subcats is certainly desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would that not effectively be a "miscellaneous" category? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a categorization by race, which we are not supposed to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Peterkingiron - not all characters listed under this category have or can be subcategorized, and, as per RevelationDirect, there is not WP:OR nor WP:BLP issues here Mayumashu (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's WP:OR to include a character where it isn't clear about their race or ethnicity, merely due to an editor guessing and placing the character in this category. And all the comments in the nom below apply to this category as well. - jc37 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's surely not the case with many of the characters listed. If it does happen to be though, then that would indeed make this category unnecessary. As for the other, how are comments below applicable here? What does WP:BLP have to do with this category? Mayumashu (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, then delete - per nom. There are several issues with attempting to classify the racial (or other) 'descent' of a fictional character. First, unless the author explicitly indicates a character's descent, the whole exercise devolves into assumptions and speculation—it is not possible to objectively judge a person's descent (much less a fictional character's) based on skin color, and the underlying assumption of this category that 'dark-skinned' or 'African' equates to 'of Black African descent' is plainly wrong. Second, fictional descent is not stable as a character's creator may deliberately or inadvertently change this characteristic over time and/or across works. Third, in extending real-world identities into fictional universes, such attempts fail to distinguish between the character as an entity (in-universe) and the character as an element of a fictional work (out-of-universe). Fourth, real-world racial classifications are largely meaningless in fictional universes because the latter are not required to follow the 'rules', so to speak, of the real world; authors are free to define 'Black', 'African' and 'descent' however they wish and there's not a damned thing we can do about it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 9 February 2012 (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.

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 all and start. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Black African descent and similarly named subcats. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:People_of_Black_African_descent and the prvious nom of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5#Category:Saudi_Arabian_people_of_Black_African_descent. The whole structure appears to be rampant with WP:OR, and thus, WP:BLP issues. - jc37 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - as nom. - jc37 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment - the nominator does not get to "vote" on their own nomination. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a "vote", it's a discussion to determine consensus. Besides, this way I clearly state which option I prefer. And besides that, I would like to think closers have a clue in how to determine consensus : ) - jc37 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is already perfectly obvious which option you prefer, otherwise you would not have nominated the group. I have been following CFD for years, and rest assured, this type of "double voting" pisses off many. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've always thought of the nomination itself as a 'vote' of sorts, with a follow-up bolded "delete", "merge" or "rename" acting as a clarifier. Even the nomination text suggested by Template:Cfd, just after the "add entry" link in the template, contains a bolded vote. The double-voting to which you refer I associate more with those discussions where a nominator prefaces every comment with a new bolded vote – a practice that can be annoying and disruptive – but not a single line immediately after the nomination. Just my $0.02. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as a clear violation of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not". 'Black African', whatever it is (if anything) isn't an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment You left out the bat shit crazy next sentence: "Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians." Basically, if we like a racial cat it magically becomes an ethnic cat. And anyone who points out that an African American cat is clearly racial is just applying "stereotypical characteristic"s.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - The article linked to on the categories (Black people) even states that the term is subjective: "The term black people is used in some socially-based systems of racial classification for humans of a dark-skinned phenotype, relative to other racial groups represented in a particular social context.". Besides which, doesn't all of humankind have a common ancestor? Just what is the degree of generation separation (rapping unintended) required to qualify one as being "Of Black African" descent, anyway? I'm inclined to view this as one giant morass of original research with unfortunate BLP implications. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per nom. I was thinking this could be salvaged with Category:People of Sub-Saharan African descent because it would be more objective but I still don't see it as defining. No objection to recreating similar cats by country if the category is more clearly socially constructed in that culture. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyStarks (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- We have dozens of categories on a person's ethnic descent. Inevitably there are elements of subjectivity in this. "Black African" seems to me a synonym for "sub-Saharan" for the simple reason that most residents of north Africa are of Arab or Berber descent. There will also be people of mixed race, who may properly be categorised as both of Black African and (say) of English descent. African-American is surely a subcategory. Anglo-Indian are irrelevant to the discussion, because India is not part of Africa. The Anglo-Indians was a recognised community in India, and identification should presewnt no difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should have no categories whatsoever on 'ethnic descent'. Ethnicity is a complex social construct, and suggesting that it is somehow determined by 'descent' is a gross oversimplification. In any case, 'Black African' has never, as far as I'm aware, been considered to be an 'ethnicity' in any reputable scholarly discussion. As is pointed out in Demographics_of_Nigeria#Ethnic_groups, in Nigeria alone there are probably more than 250 recognisable ethnic groups - though of course, there is no objective way to actually count them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethnicity is certainly defined largely by descent in many cultures much of the time. Sometimes that is defined by the ethnic group itself, other times it is imposed from outside. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, 'ethnicity', as it is normally defined within the social sciences, has to be self-asserted - an externally-defined 'ethnic category' is something else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • While our views are quite different on who can have agency with ethnogenesis , they're not relevant to the cat so I've stricken my aside. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:People of African descent and its appropriate subcats. This is a racial subcategorisation of African-descended people, and there is a long-standing convention we don't do racial categories. This should not be an exception.
  AndytheGrump raises important concerns about the wider system of ethnic descent categories, but it would be wrong to single out African descent for special treatment. If Andy (or any other editor) wants to do remove ethnic descent categories, this should be done by a group nomination of all the ethnic descent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these are characterizations by race, which we are not supposed to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all They are comparable with the African American categories, and no one, as far as I know, wants to delete those. Monegasque (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/upmerge all to Category:Fooian people of African descent to remove racial aspect. Mayumashu (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That would remove the racial aspect but would leave us with an even less useful and more artificial 'continental' aspect. The classification 'of African descent' has meaning only in the context of some ill-defined typology of racial identity, and it becomes largely meaningless if the racial component is removed. Besides, there's not a person alive or dead whose descendants weren't from the African continent. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree. How else is the specific information found via such categories supposed to be found? You make the information harder to find by removing these categories. I also notice that someone is already removing the categories, such as Category:Brazilian people of Black African descent, without a final decision having been made on the matter. Why is it someone's goal to make this information harder to find? talk you think it's racist to imply Black over African? I will agree that the two terms on not exactly synonymous. But what would be a solution where people could still find people of African ancestry and/or Black identity/race/culture via cultural or national origin? Until that solution is offered, I say keep what already exists. And un-delete the categories that have been deleted thus far. Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:People of Asian descent, Category:People of European descent, and Category:People of African descent, none of which are part of this nomination. I agree that Category:People of African descent should likely be done away with because of what you point out, that we are all of African descent, but a nomination needs to be put together. I disagree though that 'by African descent' means (necessarily or to all, anyway) some aspect of racial identity and not just merely continental aspect. I disagree too that this is (utterly, if that's the suggestion) artificial, meaningless. Mayumashu (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and AndyTheGrump, with the option to restore (very, very carefully) for those few cases where race forms the basis of an ethnic identity. I've been looking at the nominated categories over the past few days and can't help but conclude that 'burn with fire and start over' is the only practical way out of this OR mess. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all this is another sign of the pure racism that infests Wikipedia. Why can't ethnic groups within the black race be noted? Why shouldn't black people be categorized based on the specific ethnic or cultural groups they come from? The same is still applied for whites, why not for blacks? All black people are not carbon copies of one another. There are various identities, cultures and linguistic groups under the umbrella of black race, black culture and black identity. Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (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.

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 both to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Article Incubator. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Incubation contributors - not to be confused with Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles. The latter is for participants. The former appears to be for those who achieved something. We have precedent to delete Wikipedians by award. Imagine if we made a category for all those who have created a new article, for example. - jc37 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Alternatively, Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Article Incubator (or whatever name they might prefer. But only need one cat for collaboration.) - jc37 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Article Incubation contributors to Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles.. Only one category is needed for collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to something - I would agree that "Wikipedians who incubate articles" isn't necessarily the best name, but it might be better to make that it's own nom after this one has been dealt with. I guess my first preference would be to agree with the nom's proposal for a new category name, and my second preference would be to merge to Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles. VegaDark (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Rename both categories (both are tagged) to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Article Incubator. Those who help to improve and 'graduate' incubated articles and those who populate and manage the Article Incubator both play essential roles in the project's operation, but as there is no particular technical skill required to do one task or the other – the former is article improvement and the latter general maintenance – there is no need to separate them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:46, 6 February 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consequentialist Wikipedians - m:Consequentialist Wikipedians (the page referred to in the category header) was deleted in 2006 m:Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006#Consequentialist_Wikipedians. - jc37 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. - jc37 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, if the meta page has been deleted then this essentially becomes a made up classification that can't foster collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The deletion of the meta page not only leaves us (and other users) unable to clearly determine what characteristic defines these users, but also hints that this is an obsolete grouping. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (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.

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/merge C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former municipalities of Baden-Württemberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Former municipalities of Baden-Württemberg to Category:Former municipalities in Baden-Württemberg

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Standardized title, see the other subcategories of the Category:Former municipalities of Germany by state and the Category:Municipalities in Baden-Württemberg. German municipal categories -by state- use "in" (all 13), and this was the reason because I created this category using "in". It is just to standardize the titles. If "of" is preferred, I've no problem to "reverse" my "CFD" rationale. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per Bushranger. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (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.

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/merge C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former municipalities of Saxony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Former municipalities of Saxony to Category:Former municipalities in Saxony

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Standardized title, see the other subcategories of the Category:Former municipalities of Germany by state and the Category:Municipalities in Saxony. German municipal categories -by state- use "in" (all 13), and this was the reason because I created this category using "in". It is just to standardize the titles. If "of" is preferred, I've no problem to "reverse" my "CFD" rationale. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 4 February 2012 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:India articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I cannot figure out what purpose this cat serves, and my enquiry at WT:INB has received no substantive reply. Sitush (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Did you read the category page? It says clearly "Articles in this category are both rated according to assessment grades and have been commented on to explain why they were graded the way they were. Articles are added here through transclusion from {{WP India}}.".
  This is a wikipedia maintenance category, and it is populated automatically through the {{WP India}} template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I read the page, It made no sense to me and furthermore the India project does not have a maintenance program etc for articles & apparently has not done so for many years. I also pre-enquired at WT:INB, as noted above, so I suggest that perhaps you, ahem, keep your hair on. If I've misunderstood things then that is fine but this is Cats for discussion, not cats for deletion - how else was I going to get some sort of explanation? - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My hair is securely on, thanks. The first sentence of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed". Do you want to delete, merge or rename the page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment but that description is not accurate. The comments are questions, discussions, and copyright notices. None of the dozen or so I checked explained the rating. (Let's assume that some are out there.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but that's wrong. See my explanation below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BrownHairedGirl. The category is populated by {{WikiProject India}} template if a subpage called Comments exists under the talk page. The comments are added by the assessment raters. See Talk:Ayodhya/Comments. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I can see the purpose of signing a rating. This cat is catching all articles with comments though even though only a minority have this signature. Maybe if we gave this notice a standard section heading, the cats could be refined so they only show the intended articles? .RevelationDirect (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Explanation RevelationDirect, you misunderstand what's happening: the comments in question are not usually visible on the talk page. For example, take the first page in the category, Talk:1961 Indian annexation of Goa. Expand the collapsed WikiProject India banner, and at the bottom of that banner see the "Comments " heading on the left. Click the "show" link on the right, and you will see the comment "This is quite an effort. Consider nominating for a higher grade for more feedback. Ncmvocalist 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)". That's the assessment comment, and the existence of that comment is what places the page in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks I was finding these comments by looking at Ganeshk's contributions but wasn't following the navigation on the Talk pages. So there isn't an issue of the cat displaying unintended articles. (That being said, I'm not sure how useful such a hidden navigation tool is.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this should be renamed to Category:WikiProject India articles with comments? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, but ... the parent cat is Category:WikiProject India articles, but it has plenty of other subcats without the "WikiProject" prefix. If they are going to be renamed, they should all be done together. They are populated through {{WikiProject India}}, which is transcluded on 86,900 pages, and we don't want to subject the server to two rounds of purging that many transclusions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Most projects with this type of category do not use the 'WikiProject' prefix – e.g. Australia, France. This is not to say, of course, that they shouldn't all have the prefix. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks like a good future (mass) nom, as I would agree the category names need improvement to better convey they are project categories, server load not withstanding. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Council has been notified. The Noticeboard for India-related topics has also been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question OK, we have three WikiProject country cats that list rated articles that have any sort of comment. (The comments I read argued, complained, asked questions and gave copyright notices with no justification for the rating.) What purpose do these cats serve? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The cat is in accordance with Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment, where it describes the |COMMENTS= and |COMMENTS_CAT= parameters, note the text "By default, these pages are categorised into PROJECT articles with comments.", so given that Template:WikiProject India has |PROJECT=India and |COMMENTS=yes, the default category would therefore be India articles with comments, and this category is therefore both justified and correctly named. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 495 categories whose names include "articles with comments". Since this is a widely-used type of maintenance category, used by so many WikiProjects, any change to these categories (whether deletion, renaming or repurposing) should be discussed first at the WikiProject Council, so that as many WikiProjects as possible can be made aware of any proposed change. Any CFD proposal should follow a discussion there, so I will now alert WT:COUNCIL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, after all of the above I am still none the wiser. Forget what may or may not happen with other projects, the fact remains that the India project does not and has not for many years operated any sort of maintenance program. It is pointless for that project. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As a specific example of something that is drawn in by the cat, see Talk:Barnwal/Comments. If anyone can advise me what purpose the comments on that page serve that could not equally well be dealt with on the main talk page then I would be grateful. Also, what are we supposed to do with those comments/that page once the issues are addressed? - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sitush, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment. And please please please please please ... CFD is really NOT the place to discuss your desire to learn more about the assessment process. Please can you take it in the first place to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I give up. I've not come across you before, came here in good faith and after asking at WT:IN, and you are treating me like some stupid kid. I am not: there was/is a genuine point to this and it related to the category. It still relates to the category but I am not wasting my time dealing with you. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am quite sure that came here in good faith. And in equal good faith I have pointed out to you that this is the wrong place for the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The category cannot be deleted unless {{WikiProject India}} is amended to remove the |COMMENTS=yes, and all of the subpages which trigger an entry in Category:India articles with comments, i.e. Talk:1961 Indian annexation of Goa/Comments, Talk:1984 in India/Comments, Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/Comments, etc., are deleted (n.b. not recategorised or de-categorised, because none of them bear a category, but deleted). Several of these don't look like assessment comments, but are more like the sort of stuff which should have been placed on the primary talk page, e.g. article improvement suggestions, so perhaps they should be copied to the primary talk page prior to deletion of the subpage.

  Amending a project banner to remove a feature requires consensus of that WikiProject, and is not a CFD matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall a proposal to abolish comments subpages (by substing them all, with proper attribution, into talk pages) that gained significant support, but it appears never to have proceeded beyond the planning stage. Until it is implemented, categories like this one serve a useful tracking purpose. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that would be helpful since--clearly--I was unable to follow this navigation tool even when looking for it. I feel better about myself when I engage in disagreement because of actual differences and not because I couldn't figure out where to click! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2012 (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.

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 delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) and WP:CSD#C1 (unpopulated categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i created some category with the name "Mauritius-related articles" and later i found that all of them already exist "Mauritius articles", i think it should merge or deleted Kingroyos (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Here is a full list which i created together with its duplicate.

Propose merging Category:Mauritius-related articles by quality to Category:Mauritius articles by quality

Propose merging Category:Mauritius-related articles by importance to Category:Mauritius articles by importance

Propose merging Category:FA-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:FA-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:A-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:A-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:GA-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:GA-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:B-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:B-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Start-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Start-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Stub-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Stub-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Book-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Book-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:C-Class Mauritius-related articles to Category:C-Class Mauritius articles

Propose merging Category:Category-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Category-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Disambig-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Disambig-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:File-Class Mauritius-related articles to Category:File-Class Mauritius articles

Propose merging Category:FL-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:FL-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:List-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:List-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category: NA-Class Mauritius-related articles to Category: NA-Class Mauritius articles

Propose merging Category:Portal-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Portal-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Project-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Project-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Redirect-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Redirect-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Template-Class Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Template-Class Mauritius articles‎

Propose merging Category:Unassessed Mauritius-related articles‎ to Category:Unassessed Mauritius articles‎

Nominator's rationale: Merge or Delete.

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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User mfe to Category:User mu

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The same Category already exist. Kingroyos (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/speedy merge - The proper ISO code appears to be mu, and the only category members are templates, so this seems fairly uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to reverse merge per below - which would of course mean the whole category tree. VegaDark (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should it not be Category:User Mauritian Creole? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Babel categories (Category:Wikipedians by language) currently use ISO 639 codes rather than language names. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - The ISO 639-3 code for Morisyen, also known as Mauritian Creole, is mfe; the language does not appear to have a two-letter ISO 639-1 code and "mu" does not appear to be a recognized ISO 639-1 code. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The templates and subcategories also should be reverse renamed and/or merged: e.g. Template:User mu-1 should be titled Template:User mfe-1; Category:User mu-1 should be renamed Category:User mfe-1; and so on. If there is consensus to reverse merge the main categories, I can take care of the subcategories and templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge The Babel extension recognises both language codes, but only {{#babel:mfe-1}} (and variants) will categorise correctly: {{#babel:mu-1}} (or variants) will not. If you attempt to delete Category:User mfe, the babel extension will recreate it. The category should therefore be Category:User mfe. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Aircraft naming conventions -> Category:Military aircraft designation systems

Nominator's rationale: Designation system is normal nomenclature in english for this, which has resulted in duplication - only diff is that naming convention appears in a couple of categories that can be added to designation systems.

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 both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Five Nations to Category:Six Nations Championship

Nominator's rationale: This is just the former name of the event between 1910–1931 and 1940–1999. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Home Nations to Category:Six Nations Championship

Nominator's rationale: This is just the former name of the event between 1883–1909 and 1932–1939. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both -- When a college meres or changes name, the alumni of the predecessor are treated as the alumni of the successor. This principle should be applied here. However, I do wonder whether all should not be renamed to refer to the sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - First of all, the article name is Six Nations Championship. So if merged, that should be the name. But look, Category:Six Nations Championship already exists, and further, is the parent/container category for both of these. This just looks like a decent way to reduce the size of the parent cat. - jc37 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Nom changed the target from Category:Six Nations to Category:Six Nations Championship. That makes this a simple UpMerge nom. If upmerged, it will make the category a bit unwieldy. I would think that subcatting the several pages like 2000 Six Nations Championship and 2000 Six Nations Championship squads to three straightforward subcats (Five Nations, Home Nations, Six Nations) would be the smart way to go. If there are better names for the subcats, that would be fine with me. - jc37 19:53, 11 February 2012 (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.

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 per revised nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles which use British English to Category:Wikipedia articles that use British English Category:Articles that use British English – modified at 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

also the following categories from Category:Articles by national variety of English (taking into account suggestions below):

Category:Articles which use American English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use American English

Category:Articles which use Australian English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Australian English‎

Category:Articles which use Canadian English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Canadian English

Category:Articles which use Hiberno-English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Hiberno-English‎‎

Category:Articles which use Indian English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Indian English‎

Category:Articles which use IUPAC spelling‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use IUPAC spelling‎

Category:Articles which use New Zealand English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use New Zealand English‎

Category:Articles which use Oxford spelling‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling

Category:Articles which use Pakistani English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Pakistani English

Category:Articles which use Philippine English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Philippine English‎‎‎

Category:Articles which use Scottish English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Scottish English‎

Category:Articles which use South African English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use South African English‎

Category:Articles which use Trinidadian English‎ to Category:Wikipedia articles that use Trinidadian English‎‎

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The title of this category should be "Articles that use British English". "Use British English" is a restrictive clause, indicating the condition for inclusion of articles. "These articles, which use British English, ...." would be a correct use of "which". See this page. ... discospinster _talk 00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should probably be Category:Wikipedia articles that use British English, as it is a "project" category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Bushranger, it should include "Wikipedia"; though how about Category:Wikipedia articles using British English or Category:Wikipedia articles written in British English ? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename to Category:Wikipedia articles that use British English, per The Bushranger. This is a wikipedia maintenance category, not a content category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REanme as BHG and Bushranger. This should be a maintenance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it worth adding the other members of Category:Articles by national variety of English to this nomination? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I wanted to test the waters first before I made the effort. I will do so now. ... discospinster _talk 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense... and support the format Wikipedia articles that use.... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Support all' - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 8 February 2012 (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.

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. Or at least, no consensus to delete or rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Following on from a previous nomination here, I wish to question and discuss the role of the whole structure of Category:Eponymous categories.

The first and foremost issue is that the starting category claims to be an administration category that is "not part of the encyclopedia." In theory, one would presume that the sub-categories which purely stem from this base should also be administrative ones. However, many of the sub-categories present appear to be very much acting as if they were in the non-administrative side. Take Category:John Lennon for instance, a legitimate eponymous content category which has de-facto been moved into a Wikipedia admin space since October 2010 as its sole parent category is Category:Categories named after British musicians. Similarly, Category:Jay Leno is only distantly connected to the "American people" category strand of the non-admin category space.

The second issue is the introduction of self-referential categories into the main content category structure. Having categories arranged by their wikipedia characteristics is a stark departure from usual non-self-referential diffusion methods such as Category:Albums by artist. A parallel situation would be if we introduced a method of diffusing busy categories with sub-categories such as Category:Good articles about entertainers. Content categories should not be defined by their Wikipedia characteristics.

Seeing as these category-named-after-X categories obey neither of the two types outlined at WP:PROJCATS, I propose that these categories either be [a] moved fully into the administrative structure by making them hidden categories and renaming them as "Wikipedia categories named after X", or [b] deleted entirely on the basis that they are content categories which are only "based on incidental features". SFB 00:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - eponymous categories are now so deeply embedded in the categorisation system - even if noone can quite agree how they themselves should be categorised - I really don't see how they can all be deleted. For example is there really any debate that there should be a Category:France that contains all topics about France? Tim! (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to delete or alter eponymous categories which are based on real topics (such as France, John Lennon etc) but rather those categories which are defined and grouped by the fact that they are Wikipedia categories (surely not a notable defining characteristic). SFB 13:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding! I do think the "Categories named... " set of categories should be retained though. You can place Category:France under Category:Countries but the contents of the former are not all countries, at least Category:Categories named after countries indicates that it is the category which is being categorised rather than its contents. Tim! (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that related to every single category. There is the unstated assumption that it is only the sub-cat topic that is relevant to the parent cat. No one expects that all the articles down the hierarchy of all the sub-cats relate to the parent category. I see no problem with having Category:France in Category:Countries even though the former cantains article and categories about France as well as the country article itself. If editors do have an issue with it the country article themselves can be placed in Category:Countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are deeply embedded by they can still be extricated and deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but possibly rename. There is an important maintenance function in having a higher-level grouping for eponymous categories, because that helps editors to monitor the growth of a type of category which is deprecated for people except in specific circumstances (see WP:OC#EPONYMOUS). The container categories are indeed a form of self-reference, so maybe for some depth of the category tree they should be tagged or renamed to reflect their status as maintenance categs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are used for maintenance they should all be set as hidden cats. The maintenance task you describe is common to all of WP and not just eponymous cats. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – although I agree with the nom that these are misused (and widely misunderstood). Category:John Lennon is an example of one correctly parented and Category:Barack Obama one that is not (Obama is an elected President, his category in contrast is an abstract entity on Wikipedia which has never stood for office). (Category:France has a completely ludicrous array of 'parents', only the last one being correct, with concatenated errors.)

Further, it does not follow that subcats of administrative categories are themselves administrative: eg the subcats of the administrative Category:Categories for renaming are just ordinary categories. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not comprehend the purpose of categorical literalism for our readers. In what way in the categorisation of the Barack Obama category inappropriate for our readers? As a reader, why would finding Category:Barack Obama within the Presidents category be an undesirable thing? Also, I think the renaming category comparison is not a good one: that category is a tracking category to state that certain actions or maintenance must be undertaken by editors. The eponymous tree does not serve either purpose. SFB 18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See, I think John Lennon is incorrectly categorized because it has no namespace parent cat and is effectively floating in mid-air. Barack Obama could use an additional eponymous parent cat but is fine. (We agree France is a mess though.) If these are widely misused and misunderstood, there may be an issue with the categorization scheme. Or, at the very least, WP:EPON should be clarified for dealing with eponymous parent cats of eponymous categories.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the duplicates. We have, for example, Category:Districts of England, which has existed since 2005, and Category:Categories named after districts of England, created December 2011. Upon seeing the addition of the latter to pages already bearing the former, I enquired as follows:

what is the purpose of Category:Categories named after districts of England? The words "categories named after" could be applied to a huge number of categories, so we don't normally do it: omitting those words gives Category:Districts of England, which already exists, with pretty much the same content.

to which I received the following reply:

Category:Categories named after districts of England seems strange but is a standard way of naming "eponymous categories" (Category:Eponymous categories). Category:Districts of England should contain the articles about the districts. e.g. Adur (district), and Category:Categories named after districts of England should the categories, e.g. Category:Adur.

However, an examination of Category:Districts of England shows that it doesn't contain the articles about the districts - it contains categories, mostly the same categories as are in Category:Categories named after districts of England. Clearly this is duplication; and unnecessary duplication, at that. There is also inconsistency: some districts are in one, but not in the other, and the rule for inclusion in Category:Districts of England reads "This category is for the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London)."; but the rule for inclusion in Category:Categories named after districts of England (which has 329 members, very close to 326) is unstated. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EPONYMOUS, the articles about English districts should all be in Category:Districts of England. The guideline says in bold "an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem there, as in some other place categories, is that Category:Districts of England should be for the district articles and not categories that include the district articles. At least in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the district articles and their related categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrownHairedGirl. What is the justification for not including the categories Vegaswikian, from a reader perspective? SFB 10:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is about districts then if should only include information about the districts. That to many would say you don't include subcategories about teams or people since they are not about the district. They belong in other tree about the area. So they should in the sports and people categories by area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the category Category:Districts of England should contain articles about districts and not about canals, people, industries, sports teams etc - ridiculous. Barnsley is a district of England, Category:Barnsley is many things but it is not a district of England. Oculi (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a top-level category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is close to but not quite at the top. But that is not a reason to keep it. The whole of WP is up for review no matter where it sits in the hierarchy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Example I used to put categories in whatever parent categories applied to the main article and made sense wit the cat but, in the last couple years, I've had my category parent cats trimmed and placed in eponymous cats by other editors so I'm trying to go with the flow. The pre-existing Credit Suisse article was in the namespace Category:Banks of Switzerland but, when I created the Credit Suisse category, I instead added it to the administrative Category:Categories named after financial services companies and Category:Categories named after companies of Switzerland. Certainly it's possible I'm doing this wrong but I based my categories off of the Category:UBS so I'm not alone. How come we have one set of categories for articles and a alternate set for categories? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  RevelationDirect, the guidance on this has been broadly stable for years. It seems that it could do with some clarification and dissemination, but if you have concerns about it, please could you discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Categorization? This discussion is supposed to be about deleting, merging or renaming a category (or group), and per WP:MULTI a discussion on how to categorise a broad type of article should be discussed in the central location for such matters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion is really a follow up of the earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I'm not sure having the beginning of the conversation there, the middle here, and then going back there again avoids WP:MULTI. But I'm not sure where the right entry point is for dicussion when problems with WP:EPON also involve categories that experienced editors interpret differently, as per the above conversation about Districts of England. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. See the two prior deletion discussions at:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_4#Eponymous_categories_and_similar_subcategories
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Category:Eponymous_categories

and the notes at Category talk:Eponymous categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Eponymous categories as well as deleting all categories starting with "Categories named after". They are redundant, of little or no use to WP development, and of little of no use to readers. It should be realised that we are here to build an encyclopaedia that is useful and easy to use for the readers. The traffic stats on categories is low and even for the more popular eponymous categories Category:Categories named after musical groups there is very few visits. Some editors may not subscribe to the need to follow the whims of WP readers but I feel that for the project as a whole it is better to cater to demand. Therefore we should not be wasting our time maintaining and discussing something that is of little value.

Categories named after something is not a defining characteristic that is of interest. Categories are used to group topics, subjects, characteristics or whatever out there in the real world. The categories are a construct used within WP and I fail to see why anyone would want to see groups eponymous categories within WP.

I want to qualify why I said they are redundant. Using the countries example all of the members of Category:Categories named after countries can be placed in Category:Countries (which BTW needs its member sub-cats tidied up and rationalised). That would make Category:Categories named after countries redundant. Category:Categories named after drainage basins is a poor cousin to the more useful Category:Drainage basins. The latter has interesting divisions for the many sub-cats such as by continent, by country and by ocean.

Is Category:Categories named after robots with its three entries useful? I think not. What use is a seriously underpopulated category such as Category:Categories named after cities? What use is Category:Categories named after musical groups with its 632 members? Who can be bothered to scroll though all the pages. If you know the name of a musical group a search will give the category as well as the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... Once something is on WP it becomes impossible to remove.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:25, 13 February 2012 (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.

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 "type" concern seems to be minor, but I'm not prejudicing against another rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of aircraft by description to Category:Lists of aircraft by type

Nominator's rationale: More accurate and encyclopedic naming, I think, than "by description". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type was my first choice but it was being used in a different context on Category:Lists of aircraft operators by aircraft type - as they were referring to specific models such as the A-1 Skyraider, 747, etc rather than the more general manner in which I needed - I have no problem with changing it - perhaps the "type" could be dropped from that category as it is redundant and potentially confusing? Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe the other one should be "...by aircraft model"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have Category:Lists of military units and formations by aircraft inside that. Mangoe (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't any aircraft "by type" signify aircraft that have separate type ratings? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type is generic. Type ratings do not readily apply to aircraft from WW2 or earlier when pilots who completed flight training could fly anything. Type is a synonym for category but the pages are already category pages so that didn't seem to be the right word to use.

With regard to Category:Lists of military units and formations by aircraft - it is not only badly named (it uses army terminology since "units and formations" is redundant as the smallest air force unit is still a formation) but should be merged into Category:Lists of aircraft operators by aircraft type to which it is a duplicate of. It seems to have been an attempt to split off the military aircraft, however few military aircraft have not found a commerical at some point, and fewer commercial aircraft have escaped military service so the distinction is meaningless. (ie: The A-1 Skyraider at the top of both lists was used as a target tug by a civilian Swedish corporation, after having served as an attack/bomber aircraft)

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.