Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3

[edit]

Category:Tipperary hurlers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main category is Category:Tipperary GAA. The current name confuses the former administrative county of County Tipperary with the GAA governing body called Tipperary GAA. The scope is for people who have played hurling for the Tiperary County Board, not for people who were born/lived in the county. The county is no longer used for administrative purposes. The county is now divided into North Tipperary and South Tipperary so the area under the administraion of the County Board is no longer (if it ever was) co-extensive with the area under the administrative of the county council(s). Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers would be better if we need to avoid confusion,I'm not sure we do but this category shouldn't be moved in isolation to Category:Hurlers. User:Laurel Lodged you seem intent on moving lost of GAA article and categories can you propose to WP:GAA how envisage the finish product ? Gnevin (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If Gnevin will undertake to assist, I will undertake the job of work that he suggests. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a job for a bot Gnevin (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No-one hurls for their county council; in Tipp as elsewhere, they play for their GAA county, of which there are 32 in Ireland, and the one in Tipperary is called Tipperary. No-one, with the possible exception of Laurel Lodged, who has unilaterally and pointlessly reamed scores of GAA articles without discussion, and now Andrewaskew, has ever thought it problematic that Tipperary hurlers are listed as Tipperary hurlers. "Tipperary GAA hurlers"? No - are there any non-GAA hurlers? Brocach (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confused As I agree with most of what Brocach has written, why is he opposing the name change? "No-one hurls for their county council" - correct. This is why the name change would eliminate the (unlikely possibility) that somebody might fall into such an error. "they play for their GAA county" - correct. This is why the name should reflect the name of the GAA county (Tipperary GAA in this case). "the one in Tipperary is called Tipperary" - incorrect. Per the parent article "Tipperary GAA is the informal name by which the Tipperary County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (Irish: Cumann Luthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Tiobraid Árann) is usually known.". And what about that club on the Tipperary Offaly border (whose name escapes me momentarily)? Are they Tipperary GAA hurlers or Offaly hurlers who are administered by Tipperary GAA? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that example Qetuth. Also, I would be happy to go along with the emerging consensus re-name of "Tipperary GAA hurlers". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean renaming the entire set including footballers? Gnevin (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is the logical imperative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an emerging consensus. I see a very recent proposal to rename a page, made by an editor who has unilaterally renamed swathes of GAA pages; oppose votes from three editors; support votes from three editors. "GAA hurlers" is a tautology: there are no non-GAA hurlers. Brocach (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brocach persists in pedelling the myth that the name change is about "GAA hurlers" or "GAA Senior Hurling Competitions" even when it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that a tautology is not involved. I have cut a section from another talk page to illustrate my point. Please substitute "hurlers" for "competitions" in the text: "it seems to be the case that in many GAA county competitions, there is an unstated assumption that the only such competition in the (geographic) county are those under the auspices of the GAA. That is, soccer competitions might not be taking place in those geographic counties. Clearly this assumption is false. However, it has become possible to propogate this falsity by maintaining the useful ambiguitity that a GAA county is identical and co-terminous with a geographic county. In some cases, this might well be true. But it glosses over the fact that one is a governing body while the other is a geographic area. The current name (Foo GAA Seniour Football Championship) dispells this useful ambiguiity and forces those GAA articles to lay their cards on the table. This would result in London GAA competitions being just one of many competitions in Category:Sports competitions in London, which is as it should be. If it's right for London, it's right for Tipperary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this category matches all the other hurlers categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. --Marco (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems likely that some of those who are expressing views here don't realise the implications - the format of titles for similar categories should be consistent, so it isn't just about the Tipperary hurlers, but hurlers in 31 other counties in Ireland (and in GAA territories overseas), Gaelic footballers in every county (and overseas), camogie players in every county (and overseas)... Laurel Lodged is attempting to rename a hundred categories by stealth. This might be preferable to simply renaming left, right and centre without consultation - which Laurel Lodged also does with GAA articles - but it is hardly honest. Brocach (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that it's a daunting task. But if it's the right thing to do - and it is - then that should not deter us. Many hands make light work. And it starts here - tús maith, leath na h-oibre. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it: an admission that a proposal to change one category is a Trojan horse for yet another sweeping User:Laurel Lodged assault on the GAA content of Wikipedia. This is an abuse of process and I think it's time to start thinking topic ban. Brocach (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was a smoking gun moment on Jan 7th above that must have escaped your attention. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. I take it that you'll not be volunteering your services then? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disregarded that as it was premised on the illusion of an "emerging consensus" in favour of the sort of change that you had been making wholesale without any regard to consensus. I can't speak for Gnevin but I perceive it as tongue-in-cheek "conditional support" on the basis that there is very little likelihood of achieving consensus for categories about GAA Gaelic football, GAA hurling, GAA camogie and GAA Gaelic hanball. Brocach (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is looking somewhat sidetracked. There seems to be a consensus that the articles should be consistent, so:
1. Is the scope of the categories intended to be:
a) 'players from, or living in, this geographic region'
b) 'players who play for this board team in the National Hurling League or similar'
c) 'players who play for a club within the board inter-county championship'
2. Should 'GAA' be included in the category name for all categories?
3. Has sufficient notification been given to all affected articles?

To me, it looks like the answer to #1. is b & c but anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case, I believe yes follows for #2 - for the same reason that our assoc football categories have "F.C." appended, and other sports have things like "R.F.C." where appropriate - usually following the main article name. A category for players representing say Dublin GAA should be of the form Dublin GAA players, no tautologies are involved. #3 seems a no, but the solution to this is not threatening topic bans, it is either expanding this proposal, or starting a new one to cover the other affected clubs. --Qetuth (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Qetuth, the issue here is not about the scope of the category (I think we can be relaxed about that: in almost every case, to have achieved notability a player will have played at inter-county level) but about whether "GAA" needs to be included in the names of categories dealing with people who play sports that are exclusively organised by the GAA (Gaelic football, Gaelic handball, camogie and hurling). As there are no non-GAA hurlers, Gaelic footballers, camogie players or Gaelic handball players, the term "GAA" is completely redundant. Your point about FC, RFC etc is already taken care of: articles about clubs, county boards, provincial boards etc. almost always have GAA (or, at club level, GAA,GAC, GFC or HC) appended (there are a few waifs and strays but they can be fixed individually). The proposed renaming under discussion here relates only to categories for articles about individual sportspeople. The renaming is pointless and would introduce a tautology into the titles of literally scores of categories. This is like having categories such as "Collingwood Football Club AFL players", "Brisbane Bears AFL players" etc. Hope that clears it up. Brocach (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To use that last example, if a club called "Brisbane Bears" had teams in more than one sport, or if the name of the team per its main article were at "Brisbane Bears AFL" that would indeed be a sensible category name. If the current "Brisbane Bears" article were renamed to say "Brisbane FC" I would expect the categories to follow suit, because the logical convention is to use the name of the club/team as the category tree name. And if we had an article at "Brisbane Bears" but a category intended to hold its players at "Brisbane AFL players", I would consider that ambiguous, and I would not consider it a good enough argument to keep there that the phrase "Bears players" is nonsensical. And, in fact, since the aim is to distinguish between a team/org and a geographic region, whether or not there were any other AFL team in Brisbane than Bears (like for example Lions) would not matter either.
Clearly, the Bears in "Brisbane Bears players" is attached to the Brisbane, and I doubt any reasonable editor or reader would see the title and think "Bear-players in Brisbane?". I don't see why GAA being followed immediately by hurlers is an issue, tautological or not - if association football used "footballers" for its player categories that would not mean potential tautology in two adjacent terms is a reason to remove "F.C." from all the club names, leaving the player category named differently to the managers, seasons, songs, templates etc categories. It may have been an argument for using players instead of footballers, though.
The reason I brought up scope is because I am unsure if that was part of your reasoning - whether playing only for your region of birth/residence/citizenship enforced in a sense similar to international representation, in such a way that distinguishing between Dublin and Dublin GAA is meaningless (I use this example because it is a clearer case of the same name than Tipperary is). Laurel implied that this was not the case. If it isn't, I don't see why these categories should be treated differently to the rest of the sporting heirarchy. --Qetuth (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qetuth. In the case of the hurling teams representing Tipperary GAA County Board, the name under which they play is "Tipperary", not "Tipperary GAA". They are thus always referred to as "Tipperary hurlers"; likewise those who represent the other 31 GAA counties in Ireland, all of which play under the name of the county rather than "county GAA". Hurling is exclusively a GAA sport, so all "Tipperary hurlers" are already implicitly identified as being associated with the GAA. There is no danger of them being mistaken for non-GAA hurlers.
Re your comment on scope, it's not any part of my reasoning, but just by way of information, virtually all people who play hurling (or other GAA sports) at inter-county level were indeed born in the county they represent; it is possible, but rare, to transfer between counties or to play for the county one of your parents came from. But none of that is relevant to the proposal to insert unnecessary "GAA"s into dozens of long-established and perfectly serviceable categories. Does that persuade you to oppose? Brocach (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has never been about mistaking GAA hurlers for non-GAA hurlers, it has been about mistaking Tipperary GAA for Tipperary. The note about common usage is perhaps more convincing, but note that it is common for sources within a sport to not use disambiguation obvious when in context, which might be needed in a wider setting (eg phrases like "Magpies captain" or "Liverpool players" are not appropriate wp category names). --Qetuth (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Qetuth for taking the trouble to represent the situation in such a logical way. I agree with your assessment. And thanks too for demonstrating the falsity of Brocach's position that the proposal is "about mistaking GAA hurlers for non-GAA hurlers". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia users position on flagged revisions categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. Consensus can change, looks to me like it has. delldot ∇. 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both or merge both into one general interest category. It has been two and a half years since these categories were last discussed, so I think a fresh look at them is justified. These categories are an anomaly given that most support/oppose user categories have been removed, which makes sense as the relevant guidelines discourage user categories based on dislikes or the advocacy of a position. Furthermore, the concept of these categories was flawed at the start and is even more flawed now. The term flagged revisions has fallen out of use in favour of pending changes, but even before this was the case, it was never clear what "supporting flagged revisions" meant nor what "opposing flagged revisions" meant - in reality there were and are far more than two positions on the issue. Due to the categories representing political labels rather than actual viewpoints, along with other factors such as the categories listing people multiple times and the history of the oppose category receiving a lot of advertising as part of its creation, they cannot be used to gauge community opinion.

To resolve these issues, I propose that either both categories simply be deleted, or alternatively, a suggestion from the last CfD can be implemented, which is to merge the two categories into one general interest category - an idea compatible with WP:OC/U, since it is relevant to the project and would have a clear scope. One possible way to do this is to merge all entries in both categories into Category:Wikipedians interested in the pending changes debate. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose both suggestions. Categories are useful historical labels, even if they are somewhat anacronistic and oversimplify the issue. These form part of the history of the development of Wikipedia, and are relevant for the understanding of current debates and positions. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one wants to record history, then can create an essay or other information page on that subject. The category-space is not a museum; I do not see the point of maintaining live categories which are no longer of any use and which go against established guidelines. Also if one uses the analogy of buildings, they were hardly ever important or significant enough to justify listed status, and I would say they were far more used/significant categories that are long gone - Category:Rouge admins for example. CT Cooper · talk 17:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or otherwise rename (These names stand out as odd names in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy for a couple of reasons - using 'support'/'oppose' and using 'Wikipedia users'). Andrew, how are they useful historical labels? What does the category provide that the user-box doesn't? A count to see which view was more popular? The previous CfD mentioned 150 users between them, now there are about 110, so the history is already being lost. I also don't see how it aids understanding of current debates.
Looking through the parent cat, most articles (the ists and wikifauna at least) do express an editing philosophy which could be helpful in understanding where another editor is coming from or what kind of tasks they may be interested in helping you with. The joke categories and the opposition of a particular policy categories, not so much. These are the kind of things which I think are perfectly fine to have in a userbox, but don't see much value in a category populated by that userbox. Maybe if I am looking at a users page, it is intersting that they support Flagged Revisions, but why would I ever look in the category? Would I ever have a reason to want help from someone who supported Flagged Revisions?--Qetuth (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Thomas Nöla et son Orchestre albums

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. delldot ∇. 05:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is a redirect to Thomas Nöla. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Nebraska ballot measures

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. delldot ∇. 04:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. There is only one article in each of these categories with no chance of more being added. Each article is half of category:Nebraska ballot measures and the year of the measure is not a DEFINING characteristic of the subject. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION does not provide which reason you meant to point to, but I presume you meant WP:SMALLCAT. That reason does not apply in cases where the category is part of an established structure.
  2. As to the question of whether the year of the measure is defining, in that case you would need to nominate all of the sister categories. I would also oppose that deletion. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean WP:OC#SMALL, or Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. I see the rationale for Category:Oregon ballot measures, but Category:Nebraska ballot measures only has two members, isn't it "category clutter" to subdivide that – Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000) was recently moved to Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, so consensus is that the year is just not that important. Now if Nebraska voters had voted on six different "Initiative Measure 416"s in six different years, then the year would be a defining characteristic. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National libraries in Algeria

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Added Government buildings in Algeria cat to the article. It is already in Libraries in Algeria and National libraries cats. delldot ∇. 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need of category for a single article. There is usually just one national library per country, and only one indicated for Algeria at List of national and state libraries. ELEKHHT 13:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Flatwoods, Kentucky

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. delldot ∇. 04:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category only has two entries. ...William 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Box set albums

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete delldot ∇. 04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize albums by format. Cf. Category:Double albums and Category:Triple albums, which were recently deleted. The fact that these albums were literally released in a box is a trivial association (and, of course, some of them weren't as they were only digital.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Yoga

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was nominated at WP:CFDS to correct capitalisation, but was opposed. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
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:Wikipedia requested photographs of Organizations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. It's totally feasible. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy to correct capitalisation. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
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.

Satellite Award winners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. delldot ∇. 04:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full list
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#AWARD, "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". Lists for each of these award categories already exist. The Satellite Awards certainly don't receive the coverage of the major cinematic awards and winning this award is hardly a defining characteristic of the award winners per WP:CAT#Articles. Browsing through a number of the categorized articles, some don't even mention the award and many more just list it in a "list of accolades" section of the article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_3&oldid=1138398053"