September 8
Category:Miscellaneous accidental deaths
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Miscellaneous accidental deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a "remainders" or "left-overs" category within the Category:Accidental deaths tree. We generally do not categorize things for being miscellaneous left-overs within a tree—they can just go in the parent category Category:Accidental deaths, if appropriate. See list of related similar discussion "precedents" here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge Miscellaneous = uncategorized. If something is uncategorized, we don't put it in a subcat.Curb Chain (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Category:Accidental deaths is a people category (subcat of Category:Dead people) and neither of the articles in Category:Miscellaneous accidental deaths is an autobiog. Occuli (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per Curb Chain. We don't have leftovers - although psychology does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2011 (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:The Beatles Capitol Records albums
- 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: relisted on October 16.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Category:Albums_by_artist_and_record_label. Last nomination was recent and no consensus, but as I explicitly said at the linked CfD, it was a test case for this category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Over and beyond overcategorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not entirely clear why we are doing this one again so soon, as I thought maybe the previous discussion's result was because of a lack of consensus as to whether this one is like the others or a sui generis case. But ... as long as it's being discussed again, I would restate my position from the last discussion, that I don't think this is a necessary subdivision. If there are disputes as to whether certain types of records are normal albums or compilation albums, they can just go in both Category:The Beatles albums and Category:The Beatles compilation albums. In some circumstances, double categorization is more sensible than creating a specialized subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge (not delete, as this would leave the albums out of Category:The Beatles albums). This format was specifically voted down in the Category:Albums by artist and record label debate. Despite being the greatest band of all time, there is no justification for Beatles exceptionalism in the category system. Kill it before it spreads.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge – as I said last time, fairly recently. Occuli (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per recent Cfd. There is a problem with classifying these albums as discussed previously and putting them in more than one category would just complicate the issue. A rename to Category:The Beatles North American albums or similar would be reasonasble. Most of the albums have been rereleased as The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 and The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, so the current name is consistent with that. Cjc13 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The recent discussion you refer to was not keep, but "kept as no concensus." Hence it being relisted. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was merely referring to the points I made in the previous discussion. The discussion was so recent it seems a waste of time to repeat the same arguments. To say this is a case of overcategorisation is to miss the points raised in the earlier discussion. These albums should go into some category relating to the Beatles. Cjc13 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well forgive me if I interpret "Keep as per recent CfD" as saying the previous discussion was an out and out "keep." As as for "These albums should go into some category relating to the Beatles" I concur, they should be in Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums, doesn't need this additional, trivial intersection. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a trivial intersection as has been proven in the last CfD. The point is that The Beatles have two main catalogues – their Parlophone catalogue in the UK (considered canon and categorised in Category:The Beatles albums) and their Capitol Records catalogue, which doesn't fit into any of the other existing categories. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing really was proven in the last discussion, because it ended with "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep – There was no consensus to delete this category so the default position is to keep it. You can't immediately re-nominate it because you didn't like the outcome. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mclay, I actually do you see your point regarding the Beatles, even if I do not agree. The underlying problem with keeping this category is that EVERY artist would be entitled to (or at least think they are entitled to) create similar-named categories. Are you sure you want somebody to create album by band AND record labels for all artists? Are you sure there is value in any such category scheme? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would renaming the category somehow so it doesn't mention the record label solve the issue? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean renaming to "The Beatles North American albums" that's infinately worse, you could have Band X albums released in the USA, Band X albums released in Canada, right down to Band X albums released in Yemen. perish the thought. You can now see how non-defining this category is, though --Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that this is not ideal - Any other bright ideas in order to keep the "non-canon" albums as a sub-set? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None that I can think of that WP needs. However, I think I should point out the parent for this category has already been deleted so there is no reason why this category should continue to exist (as pointed out by the nominator). Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not think of any other artist which has separate articles for UK and Anerican releases, so I do not think the problem arises for other bands. Cjc13 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. The US Albums should be a subset of Category:The Beatles albums, as they are not considered to be albums proper in the Beatles "canon". In fact, I notice that the Vee-jay albums are also shown under Category:The Beatles albums, so by renaming to Category:The Beatles North American albums as suggested above, we could include these also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to address the subject of "canon" here. Meet the Beatles! was the Beatles' first Gold album. It was number 1 on the U.S. Billboard charts for 11 weeks. It's #59 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It sold five million copies. And yet this definition of "canon" allegedly forces this album into some ghetto of "not real" albums, just because it was issued by a division of EMI that isn't the division of EMI in Great Britain. Yes, I know the Beatles got mad at Capitol. So did Frank Sinatra, and we don't rip his Capitol albums out of Category:Frank Sinatra albums. This argument is WP:CRUFT.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following seems to illustrate the point. "With the release of The Beatles catalog on CD in 1987, releases were standardized on a worldwide basis and eventually the U.S. albums, which had last appeared on vinyl and cassette, were deleted." [1] The early American albums were only released on CD in 2004, as the UK releases were considered the standard version. Cjc13 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Again I say, five million copies of Meet the Beatles! exist. It's an album with the Beatles' name on the cover, issued by the Beatles' record company, and bought by millions of Beatles fans. It belongs in Category:The Beatles albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in a subcategory of Category:The Beatles albums, so is there a problem? "Meet the Beatles" is largely a reworking of With the Beatles which was released 2 months earlier in the UK and other countries. All the Beatles records have sold well including compilations. Cjc13 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, there is most assuredly a problem. I believe I've stated my opinion clearly, so will leave it at that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To have a sub-category for these is only following the same reasoning as having a sub-category for, say, compilation albums (which, to some extent anyway, are what these are, rather than "studio albums"). Their parallel release is confusing if you are looking for a definitive list of Beatles albums. Would it ease your concerns if we had two separate sub-categories, each following the UK or US release canons? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A definitive list can be part of an article. For categorization purposes, these are all Beatles albums, and they should all be in one category. Again I say, they were not compilation albums at the time. Does the entry for Rubber Soul need to be broken in half, one for an album released in Britain and one for a very slightly different "compilation" released in the U.S. in the same week? This is thin-slicing for cruft reasons. Put them back into one category where they belong, sez me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Capitol Records albums. This sets a bad precedent for others to possibly follow if kept and is an unnecessary intersection of label and artist. No need to complicate the categorization any further, but I wouldn't mind reading about the topic in an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this set a precedence when there are no other examples of this issue? Cjc13 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were other examples, then a precedent would have already been set. Let's not start one with this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting ridiculous. How many artists don't intersect with a record label? And if you mean albums repackaged and released by on different labels for different territories, the list is endless - especially in the 60s. Then there's even albums repackaged and released on a different label in the same territory. None of which is a defining characteristic of any artist or album, even the Beatles. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The unusual part is that both versions have articles. In other cases one article covers all the versions. The other point is that the category only includes those Beatles Albums not released in the UK, so for instance Revolver is not in this category even though a version was released by Capitol Records. This is why a rename of the category may be sensible. Cjc13 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well check out Category:The Rolling Stones albums then, exactly the same thing, different articles, repackaged, different labels. Fortunately those looking at those articles understand people will want to search for either the Rolling Stones album category, or the Category:Decca Records albums, Category:ABKCO Records albums or Category:London Records albums but not a combination thereof. And there are plenty of other examples. But they are all irrelevant. The underlying problem is that if this category remains then every band will able to create Band X Record Label albums. Totally meaningless, futile and pointless. Furthermore, the existance of this category diminishes the Beatles and if this is so important why wasn't Category:The Beatles Parlophone albums created when the Capitol category was created? 'Nuff said. Let it go. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:The Beatles Parlophone albums was created as Category:The Beatles studio albums so that all the albums were in subcategories but the category was upmerged after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Category:The Beatles studio albums. The Rolling Stones is an interesting case but in that instance the early albums are not well known, so there is less of an issue. This is not the case of wanting to categorise albums by Band and Record label but to differentiate between original albums and albums which have been altered and renamed for a specific market. As regards searching for albums, I think most people use the templates such as Template:The Beatles albums to find the albums. Categories are less useful because they include less information. Hence I would suggest including the template in Category:The Beatles albums and if necessary renaming Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums to something like Category:US versions of early The Beatles studio albums so that it clear what the category contains. Cjc13 (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2011 (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:Polish irredentist and revolutionary organizations
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Polish irredentist and revolutionary organizations to Category:Polish independence and revolutionary organizations
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created based on a Polish wikipedia category Kategoria:Polskie organizacje rewolucyjne i niepodległościowe. Now, I am not a native English speaker, but is think that the word independence is more correct here than irredentist (the context is organizations aiming to regain independence). Google book tells me that "revolutionary organizations" yields 50k hits, "independence organizations", 2k, and "irredentist organizations", barely a 100. Once this discussion is done, I intend to create a parent cat. I am not sure, however, if we shouldn't split this category into two (one for revolutionary organizations and one for independence ones). The Polish wiki Kategoria:Organizacje rewolucyjne i niepodległościowe is, btw, a subcategory of Category:Organizations_by_subject, Category:Revolutions and Category:Rebellion. I am also thinking of adding Category:Illegal organizations and Category:Irregular military, but perhaps there are some i & r organizations that are neither? Input is very much appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with the proposed renaming, and would also support the suggestion to split the category, as independence groups might tend to be revolutionary and it took revolutions to achieve renewed Polish independence, but revolutionary groups persisted after independence. Comment "Irredentist" usually refers to existing states seeking to regain putatively lost territory (and it is not at term in ordinary use by most native English speakers btw). In the period when Poland was completely divided among Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary, I suppose independence organizations were tautologically irredentist in some sense, but independence clearly captures the aim better. But were there any irredentist organizations in the usual sense after Poland regained independence, and does that matter? E.g. Were there groups that wanted to regain Danzig/Gdansk in the interwar years, or parts of then-German territory that were annexed to Poland after World War II? Likewise, since the end of the Soviet Bloc, were/are there groups that want to regain parts of former eastern Poland that were annexed to the USSR? Even if there were, maybe they just should be excluded from the category. Chris Lowe (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I also agree with Chris that the category should be split. Support, because there doesn't seem to be a single "irredentist" organization in the category, though there are some "independence movement" types. And split because, yeah, if you look at the category and don't have the prior knowledge of these organizations, then you can't tell the "revolutionary" ones apart from the "independence" ones. An example of the first would be the old, pre war, Communist Party of Poland (rev but not int), an example of the second would be the National League (Poland) (not rev but int). Obviously I don't think both of these belong in the same category, both colloquially and literally speaking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2011 (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:North Korean expatriates in South Korea
- 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. Any article moves will need to be proposed separately on the relevant talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:North Korean expatriates in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. People of North Korean origin (e.g. North Korean defectors) who reside in South Korea are considered by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea to be South Korean citizens, not expatriates. North Koreans in Japan (like the single member of this category, An Yong-Hak) who wish to move to South Korea must register (not "naturalize") as South Korean citizens through the consulate and obtain South Korean passports; they cannot travel to nor reside in South Korea as "North Korean expatriates". cab (call) 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. However I would suggest moving North Korean defectors to North Korean defectors and refugees given the content of the article, and possibly the use of that term for a category insofar as there are articles on individuals in addition to the general one. Chris Lowe (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (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:Illegal immigrants
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Illegal immigrants to Category:Illegal immigration
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Basically the same subject. Current categorization is random and overlapped. Loew Galitz (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Presumably Category:Illegal immigrants is intended to hold articles about individual people while Category:Illegal immigration is for articles about the phenomenon, similar to Category:Biologists vs. Category:Biology. The subcategories like Category:Illegal immigrants to Mexico indeed contain only biographies. Probably just the Harraga, Illegal immigrants in Malaysia, Illegal immigrant population of the United States, and Boat people articles need to be recategorised. cab (call) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Category:Illegal immigrants is a subcat of Category:People and should only contain individual biographies. Occuli (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT I understand the arguments and accept them. However from the contents of the categories it is evident that many people are not aware of this 'people'/'phenomenon' distinction. The category pages must clearly state this. Please, someone who is good with ropes in wikipedia, write the corresponding headers. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Occuli. If the category is messed up, we need to fix it, not kill it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like there is a need for another subcategory of Category:Illegal immigration that would be something like Category:Illegal immigrant populations to cover articles like those mentioned by cab above. I am not sure if that would help with the process problem Loew Galitz comments on or not. Chris Lowe (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep people aren't "immigration". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2011 (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:People from Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:People from Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana to Category:People from St. Helena Parish, Louisiana
- Nominator's rationale: per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain as is. Wherever reasonable, get abbreviations out of article titles and categories. "St." is also the abbreviation for "Street" and other words. Change the article title to "Saint Helena Parish, Louisiana." Do the same for all the other "saint" parishes in Louisiana. Good scholarship depends on exactitude, which an abbreviation isn't. Rammer (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I also think renaming the article would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2011 (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:Roller skaters
- 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: procedural keep and repopulate. I haven't heard any objections (other than from the nominator) for this clear violation of CfD procedure. I'm putting it all back, and then the nominator can renominate the full categories for renaming, deleting, or splitting as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Empty category which has been merged into category:skaters, category:inline speed skaters, category:roller derby skaters and category:aggressive inline skaters.--Cosprings (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I emptied the category because it was being misused. Most entries were not, in fact, rollerskaters, but inline skaters, a different thing entirely. Rollerskate wheels form a rectangle and inline skate wheels are in a line. Almost all uses were incorrect. Cosprings (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (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:Sahaba
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Sahaba to Category:Sahabah
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. I don't know Arabic and I'm not familiar with its transliteration, but it seems like these are just two schemes that have been randomly used on en.wp and should be standardized in article and category namespaces. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 8 September 2011 (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:RoboCop (franchise)
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:RoboCop (franchise) to Category:RoboCop
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Undo recent rename as recent CfD closed prematurely. It seems inappropriate to use a disambiguator. It's all about "RoboCop" whether we're talking about the film, character, francise, video games, whatever - the disambiguator is not needed here. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First off, there are several such categories, so there is a significant consensus to keep or renamed similarly-titled collections of articles. Furthermore, "RoboCop" refers to the first film, the character himself, and the larger media franchise. If the article at RoboCop is about the film and the category is also named Category:RoboCop, that implies that the contents are all directly related to that first film itself, rather than being about the general media franchise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but as the franchise spun off from the initial film, then ultimately everything in the franchise is directly related to the initial film. In this case the disambiguator seems unnecessary as the disambiguator in the article titles is only to disambiguate between other articles within the RoboCop franchise, not from outside of this sphere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename since we are not disambiguating this category from any other. I do not get the impression that simplifying the category name (especially per WP:PRECISION) will confuse readers. It seems to me to be a high-level category, like Star Wars or X-Men. Although the RoboCop category needs the two sequels in it! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:RoboCop franchise. The title clearly needs disambiguation, but one does not need artificial naming to do this. Loew Galitz (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguating from what? --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not rename. Disambiguation does not work quite the same way in categories as it normally does with articles. In categories, we typically match the name of the category to the main article, even if we are not disambiguating from any other category of the same name. RoboCop is about the film; RoboCop (character) is about the character; RoboCop (franchise) is about the entire gamut of the franchise. Since this category is about the entire franchise, it should match the name of the article about the franchise, which is RoboCop (franchise). This seems to be a case of misunderstanding this principle more than anything else. (Also, the category has not been tagged for renaming.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the guidelines for disambiguating categories? I looked for them but did not find any. I see no reason why the category "RoboCop" should be assumed to be the first film. It is a category, so it will be all things RoboCop (including the sub-categories). In addition, articles follow the disambiguation system based on what readers are most likely to look for. Categories are not based on that. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as they are, I don't believe they have been formalized. What I said was based more on precedent and speedy crition C2D than anything. I think by implication, the speedy criterion supports what I said. It would probably be a good idea to create some guidelines, but these issues of treating categories differently are always such a headache for all involved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're misrepresenting the intention of the speedy crition C2D, which doesn't mention disambiguation. Yes, categories should match the article, and calling this category "RoboCop" would match the article title, only without the disambiguator. Bear in mind that EVERY article called "RoboCop" and related disambiguators would be included under this category. Whilst disambiguation would be appropriate for subcategories (for example Category:RoboCop (video games), etc.) or if there were different topics with the same name, we're talking about a top-level category here. And if you're talking precedent, see Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street, Category:Rambo, Category:The Fast and the Furious, Category:Back to the Future, Category:Hellraiser, Category:Dirty Harry etc, etc. In fact, with only a couple of exceptions, and obvious exceptions where disambiguations are required because of conflicts outside the sphere of the film franchise (Willow, Scarface, etc.), trhe majority of franchises do not have disambiguators. See Category:Categories named after films for more examples. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the way consensus has played out on these types of categories when discussed, as the first commenter noted—so no, I don't think I'm misinterpreting it in the context of what has gone before. I don't believe the categories you mention have ever been discussed, so their existence is of little utility, since anyone can create a category named anything, and it takes a nomination to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first commenter stated "there are several such categories, so there is a significant consensus to keep or renamed similarly-titled collections of articles". Now, as per my examples above, it would appear that consensus is not to disambiguate in these cases. Would be interested to see some examples of consensus for disambiguation on these film-franchise categories. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I tried to express above, I don't think the mere existence of a category necessarily proves any sort of consensus, since anyone can create a category named anything. Typically, the only time consensus decisions are really reached on such things is when they are discussed at CFD. There are instances of discussions here, here, here, here, here, here. These are by no means all of them, just the ones that I could remember off the top of my head. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the examples you give are where disambiguation is necessary because the word could mean something outside of the sphere of the film franchise. "Alien" could mean something else, as could "Saw", "Tremors", etc, etc. This is not the case with "RoboCop" - any article in this category would be related to the film franchise. Until something else called "RoboCop" comes along, "RoboCop" has no need to be disambiguated, and is a suitable primary top-level category name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "RoboCop" can refer to the film, the character, or the franchise. They are of course connected, but they are not the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it can, but all of these are directly connected with the film series/franchise and the high-level category that until recently was called, simply, "RoboCop". No need to disambiguate, as anything else would be a sub-category of this one (video games, etc). The only need to disambiguate would be if something else called "RoboCop" came along that was unrelated to all of these articles. Only then would the disambiguator would be necessary, as you may then need categories for RoboCop the film franchise, and, say, RoboCop the catfood brand. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the normal principles of categorization mean that naming to Category:RoboCop suggests that it should correspond in topic exactly to the article named RoboCop, which it doesn't. It corresponds in meaning to the article named RoboCop (franchise). I realize you disagree with this approach, but it is the usual one for categories, whether for film franchises or otherwise. If we want to make special exceptions for film franchises, we could, but I don't see much of a point for treating them differently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline states "normally", but there don't seem to be any guidelines on how to deal with disambiguation. It seems reasonable in cases like these, where all articles in question relate to the same topic that exception can be made to this "normally", as disambiguation seems completely unnecessary. I'm going to pop something on the category talk page to see if we can get some further opinions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - whether it be an article on the character, a film in the series or anything else, it's all something robocop-y. Agree with original nominator. Coolug (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I think GOF is overstating the reach of the categorization principle. The category contains all things RoboCoppy, which draws from the eponymous film and the sequels. Compare Category:Star Trek and Category:Star Wars, which do not have the "(franchise)" tag, yet are about properties expanded far beyond the initial expressions they were named after.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2011 (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:Victims of the 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash
- 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 RM on the main article has ended in no move. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Victims of the 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash to Category:Victims of the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash
- Nominator's rationale: To match the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example "plane" is not used on WP. The word is "aircraft". That is just one thing wrong with the article, and the proposed category name. --Russavia Let's dialogue 09:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aircraft is ambiguous and plane crash is not. Plane might be a problem but plane crash is not as it is very specific. Aircraft can be any number of vehicles that are not a plane. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2011 (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:Conductors who died while conducting
- 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 to Category:Conductors (music) who died while conducting. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Conductors who died while conducting to Category:Conductors (music) who died while conducting
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24#Category:Conductors. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Music conductors who died while conducting: no need in titles which look weirdly ungrammatical. Loew Galitz (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for the current title format is to make all the music conductor categories use the same method of disambiguation, while making suree none of them are ambiguous. If we had a Category:American music conductors, then it would look like the category were about conductors of American music. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#Category:Conductors, where several different suggestions were made, and no consensus was established for any of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Conductors (music) who died while conducting per nominator. (Hopefully none of them died of electrocution, otherwise further disambiguation may be required). Unfortunately the standard here seems to be to stick with parenthetical disambiguation, even when it gives us monstrosities like Category:Conductors (music) from Georgia (country). cab (call) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Conductors (music) who died while conducting. It should follow Category:Conductors (music). Occuli (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (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:Host cities of the IAAF World Athletics Championships
- 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) 10:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Host cities of the IAAF World Athletics Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per WP:OC#VENUES. Having hosted the IAAF World Athletics Championships is not defining for the cities so categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with this one, as being one of a handful exceptions of defining attributes to the city based on a global event. Compare Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games. Lugnuts (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even close to the same caliber, I wouldn't think. Well, maybe kind of close—but the Olympics clearly has the advantage in terms of prestige and in terms of time-frame—the IAAF Athletics Championships has only been around since the 1980s. Is having been an IAAF host city defining for Edmonton? Not really, I don't think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, but it's not mentioned in the (quite lengthy) lead of the article Edmonton and is not mentioned until well into the subsection in the article on sports and recreation. If it's defining, the article sure doesn't reflect that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well blame the article then and not the category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that is because the lead article is just a summary and not all information in an article belongs in the lead. Something like this belongs in the sports section of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not important enough to be in the lead, it's very difficult to argue that it's defining and thus appropriate for a category. The more I read about Edmonton and the other cities that have hosted this, the more I'm convinced this is not defining at all. It's just one event among many that the cities have hosted, and thus squarely within WP:OC#VENUES. No one here has explained why the default guideline should not apply in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A bad precedent for overcategorization. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have never even heard of the IAAF World Athletics Championships. Speciate (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2011 (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.