[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24

edit
Please note that the discussions on this page have been transcluded from subpages.

Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers

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: having been just reminded that IAR exists for a reason, I think I'll go out on a limb and rename this to Category: Victoria (Australia (country)) (cricket (sport (activity)) team) cricket (sport (activity)) players, with thanks to Andrew Nixon for the idea. And as this is just for cricketers for the victoria team, and not from Victoria, Australia, would anyone object to a little cleanup? I saw quite a few articles that must have been added after the last rename, because they contain no references to the Victorian Bushrangers, but rather, just the Australia national cricket team. . Kbdank71 20:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers to Category:Victoria cricketers
Nominator's rationale: In one of Wikipedia's less shining moments, a decision was made here at CfD to rename all categories relating to the Australian state of Victoria to use the term "Victoria (Australia)". (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5#Victoria (Australia) for the discussion). These categories were mass-nominated with the nominator showing little concern to actually analysing the affected categories to see if there was actually any ambiguity to be disambiguated. The discussion, pushed through as a pseudo-speedy rename, of course predictably ignored discussion from those editors who actually work with the categories and the admin, when closing the discussion in favour of the rename, added his 2c worth of sarcasm—'personally, I love the argument "I don't care what the stupid policy says"'—conveniently forgetting WP:IAR exists for a reason.

Anyway, the results of this rather poor nomination and decision are starting to come in. In a tiny minority of cases, the rename has addressed an ambiguity and has been worthwhile. In the vast majority of cases the rename has had no effect other than making the category name longer and making it more difficult for new editors to find the correct category name. In some cases, however, the rename has been lead to a positively poorer outcome and the above is one of these cases. If the nominator had taken the time to point out a renaming rationale for each category rename, we wouldn't need to be here today, but alas, the flawed CfD procedure means we are back here today to fix this error.

No doubt, the nominating editor and closing administrator saw Category:Victoria cricketers and Category:Cricketers from Victoria as synonymous and thus a rename to Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers would be the same as a Category:Cricketers from Victoria (Australia). This is incorrect and an editor with knowledge of either cricket or Australia would have been able to point this out had they been given the opportunity to have a say without the distraction of a mass nomination. The term "Victoria cricketers" does not refer to cricketers from the geographical location known as the state of Victoria but instead cricketers who have played for the Victoria cricket team or in its modern guise Victorian Bushrangers. Its parent category is Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team not Category:Cricketers from Australia by state. As such, this is analogous with Category:Liverpool F.C. players rather than Category:People from Liverpool lets say. In some other examples, the Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan belongs in Category:New South Wales cricketers but not in a category called Category:Cricketers from New South Wales, the Barbadian cricketer Garry Sobers belongs in Category:South Australia cricketers but not in a category called Category:Cricketers from South Australia and so on.

Note that Category:Victoria cricketers is entirely unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as, say, Category:Sussex cricketers which again refers to cricketers who play for Sussex County Cricket Club, not cricketers from the county of Sussex. There is no other cricket team called "Victoria" that is remotely likely to produce cricketers notable enough for an article. To head off any proposal to rename to Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers, this would create an anachronism; Harry Trott, Hugh Trumble, Warwick Armstrong and Ian Johnson did not play for any institution called "Victorian Bushrangers", a modern, rather peurile marketing invention. The article name is another bugbear that needs fixing at some time

Normally, I would just go ahead and rename the category back to its correct name, but my previous experience here at CfD has convinced me that this is not a wise thing to do if I want to avoid accusations of whining, "owning" and other assorted wiki-crimes. Indeed the closing administrator gave his opinion on attempting to find common sense solutions where following policy creates problems. Instead, I will jump through the hoops here and submit the rename request here to this hopelessly flawed CfD process with little expectation of a suitable solution. Mattinbgn\talk 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment None that are even likely to be close to notable. On the off chance there are any, then a category such as Category:Cricketers from Victoria, British Columbia. This could be done while keeping Category:Victoria cricketers for the large category of actually notable cricketers playing for a professional team, Victoria. There is no need to disambiguate for every possible ambiguity, else Category:Sussex cricketers would require disambiguation to distinguish it from cricketers from the various Sussex counties in the US—never mind that there are not likely to be any that would justify a separate category for them. --
  • Rename. To answer Vegaswikian, there is no first-class cricket team called Victoria, British Columbia. As Mattinbgn has clearly pointed out, Victoria in this context is an Australian team that represents a state, just as the Minnesota Vikings team represents its state. It is absolute nonsense to include (Australia) when the institution in question is a team with a unique title. You might as well have a category called category:New York (America) baseballers to avoid confusion with a hypothetical baseball team in York. BlackJack | talk page 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. A search on the CricketArchive website reveals 2706 results for teams with a name containing Victoria. Of these 8 are for teams that happen to have Victoria as part of their name (eg. Manchester Victoria), 6 are for Victoria College in Egypt and six are for Victoria, BC. The other 2686 all refer to the Victoria Bushrangers or their associated youth, women's and second teams. As far as I'm aware, disambiguation is there to prevent confusion, but if one usage is the dominant usage (eg. we have Paris go to the French capital city rather than a disambiguation page that includes Paris, Texas and Paris, Yukon) then that takes priority. In cricket, Victoria in Australia is quite clearly the dominant usage, so should not have any disambiguation. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. This dominance being on account of the fact that the Victoria team in Australia plays first-class cricket while the others do not. A category about, say, Manchester Victoria CC probably could not be sustained because of WP:N, even if a number of first-class cricketers had actually played for the team. The only possible interpretation of a category called category:Victoria cricketers is that it concerns the Australian team called Victoria. WP:UCS was largely overlooked in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5#Victoria (Australia) so let us hope that it prevails in this discussion. BlackJack | talk page 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Disambiguation is not required in this case as the Australian state is the only prominent team that uses the name, and certainly the only first-class one as demonstrated above. There could be no possible confusion for a reader. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Wikipedia is global. The average reader has no idea which Victoria is being referred to in 'Victoria cricketer'. W G Grace played during the reign of Victoria, for instance. ('Sussex cricketers' etc should also be renamed, to 'Sussex County Cricket Club players'. There is no confusion between York and New York.) Occuli (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cricket is global and when referring to the "average reader" perhaps people should consider that the encyclopedia in general and cricket articles in particular have a readership beyond the shores of North America. The millions of Anglophone Indian readers for a start would be quite of what Victoria is meant in this category name. The reference to Cricketers in the Victorian age is grasping at straws (for a start the category would be called "Victorian cricketers" and not "Victoria cricketers" and a further example of the way discussion at CfD seems to ignore common sense. My big fear when citing the Sussex example was that someone would suggest exactly what you have. What would such a rename actually achieve? It certainly would not resolve any ambiguity; it being unlikely that there would be any other reading of the category name unless one was actively looking to find one. If there is a way to create a longer, more complicated name for a category, you can guarantee that CfD will find it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I'm quite sure the average reader can understand context and thereby tell the difference between a place (in fact, a team) and a queen. We do have temporal categories about Victorian players but they are named by span of years (e.g., 1816 to 1863). Your suggestion that "Sussex cricketers" should be called "Sussex County Cricket Club players" completely misses the very important historical point that teams called Sussex have been active since the 17th century but Sussex CCC was not founded until 1839 and Sussex players before then did not play for the club. As for confusion between York and New York, the thick average reader that you have identified probably does not know the difference: he probably thinks "new" is an adjective as in "rookie", which serves to illustrate how ridiculous it is possible to be when trying to impose a global disambiguation policy. Please read WP:IAR and WP:UCS. BlackJack | talk page 14:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current name. Any use of "Victoria" can be ambiguous, despite the nominator's protestations to the contrary. Uses of Victoria in category names should be, and generally are, treated in a similar manner as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)" categories. Occuli's point about WP being global is also well made; although some Australian Wikipedians may be annoyed by the usage, it is generally helpful for the vast majority of users. I understand the nominator's distinction between people from the place and people from the team; I'm just not sure it's worth the bother to split hairs in this manner. Perhaps one option could be to simply use Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers to match the main article, with an explanation that not all players included played under the name "Bushrangers". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Instead of making sweeping generalisations, why not focus on the case in point? If you read the comments above by people who actually use this category you may begin to understand that it concerns a cricket club, not a state or a queen, and that this club has a unique name in the context of first-class cricket. Furthermore, we have already had Occuli defining the intelligence of the average reader and now you announcing what is best for the "vast majority of users". Who do you think you are? Read WP:IAR and especially WP:UCS. BlackJack | talk page 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm a WP user. Who do you think you are? I'm as entitled to my opinions as you are, and I think the general rule should be applied here. I've already addressed the place vs. club issue. You or some Wikiproject don't own the category, so I suggest you stop acting like you might. It's also not terribly helpful to tell people to "[r]ead WP:IAR and especially WP:UCS", thereby implying that they are not using common sense. A little humility and a belief that perhaps—just perhaps—others might have legitimate views seems in order here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little humility from someone who speaks for "the vast majority of users"? And when you talk about the views of other site users, perhaps we should look very seriously about how consensus on the CfD pages seems to rest with those who use the pages on a regular basis and who all seem to crop up time and time again whenever there is anything "controversial" to be discussed. You are quite right that the legitimate views of other users must be presented besides those who like to interpret "policy" despite knowing absolutely nothing about the subject-matter. The trouble is that these other users only take part in CfD if a topic is relevant to their area of interest, a scenario which tends to leave the field open to the CfD specialists. BlackJack | talk page 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion about what would be helpful for the vast majority of users was, um, an opinion. I.e., I didn't claim to be speaking for anyone else. A closer reading of my comment would probably reveal that, but if that wasn't self-evident, then I state so here explicitly. Incidentally, your comment is the second time you've implied that I don't know anything about the topic; the first being when you suggested that I'm not among the users who "actually use" the category. I'm curious as to how you "know" this or have any knowledge whatsoever about my knowledge background. Presumptuous, if nothing else. Boring, at worst. I've expressed my opinion; I find it fascinating that others can't resist the need to try to refute an opinion when it conflicts with their own. Not sure where you're going with your broader point about CfDs, but this doesn't seem like an appropriate forum for that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user's contribs record is useful for getting an idea of where his interests lie and I can't see anything about cricket in yours so I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not a cricket expert. My apologies if you are in fact Gary Sobers or whoever. As for refuting others' opinions, I would remind you of your statement above: Any use of "Victoria" can be ambiguous, despite the nominator's protestations to the contrary. Protestations or Mattinbgn's opinions? You were the nominator of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5#Victoria (Australia) and you were supported by Occuli and Vegaswikian who have have both unsurprisingly resurfaced in this discussion. We're still waiting for Peterkingiron to make his customary appearance. What it means is that these discussions have a regular cast and that is not a good state of affairs when people with a direct interest in the subject-matter are striving to improve the projects they are working on for the benefit of their readers. I agree this is not the forum but it is an issue and the site must do something to give more (not total) control over categorisation to the people who are actually working with the categories. But, as you say, that is for another forum. BlackJack | talk page 07:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've slightly misread it then. It typically happens when someone pops up over and over again to multiple comments from multiple users. I made one comment and had multiple pirates boarding. One comment does not a pop-up pirate make. But in any case, there's no shame to being a PPP; many editors do it. Who wouldn't want to be a pirate? I know I would. Arghh! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, but as demonstrated above there simply is no ambiguity for Victoria in the context of cricket. Victoria in Australia is by far the dominant usage for cricket (99% of uses as shown above) and should therefore have no disambiguation. I refer you to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, more for articles but states, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." I think that the same applies here. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't missed your point at all. I'm simply pointing out that, despite what you think, there is no ambiguity in having the name Category Victoria cricketers as within the context of cricket it refers to the Australian state and nowhere else almost 100% of the time. This may change in future I accept, but at the moment there is one clear primary topic for this usually ambiguous term and therefore no disambiguation is required per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, it still looks like you have, because ambiguity in this specific case was not my main point. Carry on, however—making the same point multiple times to multiple users never did any real harm, I suppose. And what were you "sorry" for? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you have to do is read my entire comments, not just selected quotes you want to pull out. As I said, ambiguity in this specific case was not my main point. I don't think it's particularly insightful to suggest that another user is failing to see or use "common sense". Users (as well as journalists, judges, and other commentators) often use "common sense" when what they really mean is "my opinion". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (back to left) Forgive me, it's early in the morning and I can't quite make out where on here you've given a reason not related to ambiguity even after reading all your comments. Could you possibly point it out to me? Andrew nixon (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the distinction between ambiguity in this particular case vs. ambiguity across all cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not getting it here... what's the reason not related to ambiguity? Let me read your reason in a simple sentence. Perhaps I'm not as smart as you and need it in plain English, something like "I think the category should be Category: Victoria (Australia) cricketers and not Category: Victoria cricketers because... (Insert reason not related to ambiguity here)". I would appreciate it. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is related to ambiguity, just not necessarily to ambiguity in this particular case: ambiguity in this particular case vs. ambiguity across all cases. I believe most uses of Victoria in category names should be disambiguated. Anyways, it's not my intention to hijack the entire discussion here over a misunderstanding like this and I hope other users don't hesitate to comment based on the length of this back-and-forth: perhaps we could agree to move it to the talk page? Good Ol’factory (talk)
          • I'll stop this "back and forth", though I was just trying to get your actual reason for wanting to disambiguate in this case. I do notice however that you accept that some uses of Victoria do not need to be disambiguated. My point is that this is one of them. As already established the Australian state is by far the primary usage in this instance, hence there should be no disambiguation. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I think I understand your point. I disagree that DAB should not be used based on an argument of primary usage; that discussion has been had in the context of categories for Victoria and it was decided otherwise. The only ones I wouldn't DAB are the ones that use "Victoria" as part of an official name of an organisation, like Category:TAFE Victoria. Perhaps one option could be to simply use Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers to match the main article, with an explanation that not all players included played under the name "Bushrangers". Feel free to move this extended discussion within the discussion to the talk page if you think it can be moved there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Victorian Bushrangers" is not now and has never been the name of the Victoria cricket team, which is and remains simply "Victoria". As I stated clearly in my nomination the term "Victorian Bushrangers" is a marketing gimmick only and I intend to address the article name in turn. In Australia (unlike the US) it is not customary to officially add the team nickname to the team name; see Hawthorn Football Club, aka the "Hawthorn Hawks". Cricinfo, who claim to be the world's largest single sport website and with some claim to authority through simple ubiquity, call their team page simply "Victoria". CricketArchive, who claim to have "the most comprehensive database on the internet with scorecards of all First-class matches, ListA matches, Women's Tests and ODIs, ICC Trophy matches and Under-19 'Tests' and 'ODIs' and much more" use the team name of "Victoria" when listing the teams of modern-day player Peter Siddle. Indeed the "Victorian Bushrangers" is not actually used by Cricket Australia or Cricket Victoria, who both use the term "VB Bushrangers"; the brewers of VB having purchased naming rights for the season—no doubt there will be a new marketing name for next season. Note that the "VB Bushrangers" is not an sponsors appendage on the marketing name of "Victoria Bushrangers"; it is the entire and complete marketing name, note the contrast at the Cricket Australia website with "XXXX Queensland Bulls" and "PKF Tasmania Tigers" where the sponsor's name is an appendage. Renaming the article and category every season to cater to the whims of sponsors, to my mind is not an acceptable solution. Further, perhaps someone will explain to me how it is preferable to create an anachronism (with the associated explanation) to avoid an ambiguity that doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be easier to simply explain any ambiguity and leave the category name as simple and clear as possible? -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I made the suggestion was because it's not atypical to have category names reflect the main article name. If the main article is misnamed, in your opinion, then the first usual step is to get the main article renamed. If there is a consensus to rename the main article, then it's usually fairly straightforward to get the category name to follow. It's a lot harder to argue that the category name should be such-and-such if the article name already has the name you are proposing. This might be why this nomination has been hard-going so far; I suspect it would be far easier if the proposal were to conform it with the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. (Edit conflict, so some of this echoes what Mattinbgn has just said). I think the problem here is that non-cricket fans expect first-class teams to have "nicknames", like Bushrangers, whereas in fact they are usually just named after a political division (such as an Australian state or English county). Some of them have now tried to adopt nicknames, but they're recent and usually not used in conversation. So a "Victoria cricketer", is one who plays for the team called Victoria. The current name, "Victoria (Australia) cricketers", is simply wrong because the team is not called "Victoria (Australia)". "Victorian Bushrangers cricketer" is technically correct for current cricketers, but inappropriate for historical players and doesn't match common usage. As there is no other team called Victoria major enough to merit a category, it seems to me that we should use "Victoria cricketers" and make it clear in the category rubric which team is being talked about. If you think of it as a team name not a state name, I don't see any better solution. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename through all the rationales above. SGGH speak! 11:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is self-evidently clear that you disambiguate only in the case of ambiguity. Disambiguating in the absence of ambiguity is (a) unnecessary and (b) positively harmful, as the category name becomes unwieldy and therefore harder to use. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be missing a point here. Category:Victoria cricketers is ambiguous in that in can mean cricketers from Victoria (which one) or members of a certain team which is not made clear in the category name, especially when you consider the fact that the the category does not match the current name of the teams article. Yes, I understand that there is an issue with the teams name, but that does not make the suggested name ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If it were cricketers from Victoria, you wouldn't say "Victoria cricketers". You'd say "Victorian cricketers" (except that that leads to an obvious ambiguity with the 19th century) or "Cricketers from Victoria". And if we were talking about "Cricketers from Victoria", I would support "Cricketers from Victoria (Australia)". But the discussion here is to find the right name for the team category. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Victoria in WP normally has the disambiguator suffix Australia, because there are other places called Victoria. No objection to proposals to reverse the order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since one side of this debate is arguing that "Victoria" is ambiguous, and the other is arguing that "Victoria" refers to a cricket team rather than a state, is it possible that both sides would be satisfied by renaming to Category:Victoria (cricket team) cricketers? Hesperian 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per User:Mattinbgn's persuasive arguments above. In this case, the new category name is clearly suboptimal. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename. At this time, and in the foreseeable future, 'Victoria cricketers' is as unambiguous a category name as 'Western Australia cricketers'. It does not need a qualifier. Moondyne 09:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I am particularly impressed by Sam Korn's points while the inescapable key fact is that this category is about a team called Victoria. Otherwise, the category's title would be "Victorian cricketers" and so there is no ambiguity. In my opinion, disambiguation is a process that can only be applied to individual cases. The decision taken in the former proposal is seriously flawed and is, as this discussion proves, a recipe for ongoing dispute. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree with many of the arguments above (nom, BlackJack, Sam Korn, etc), and additionally I tend to oppose names which are unwieldy and inobvious. I don't really like "Victoria cricketers" either as I was a sub-editor for several years and that screams out "grammar fix", but it's way better than the present location. Orderinchaos 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As above, there was no good reason to change original name.--Grahame (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2008 (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.

Musical groups by numbers

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. Kbdank71 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quintets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sextets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Septets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - with the possible exception of brass quintets (which have a separate sub-category not up for action) happening to have five, six or seven members in a band is not defining of the band. Groups so categorized have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of numbers. If retained, these should all be renamed to "Musical foos" to clarify that they are for musical groups and not other groupings of objects. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure. There are a number of well-defined sub-categories for those numbers so the categories may be viable as parent cats, although I would suggest depopulating them of groups that don't fit one of those specific subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is bound to cause confusion (for instance, Da Yoopers have had anything from four to ten members, and they're at six now; what do we categorize them as?). As Otto pointed out, there are well-defined subcats of the lesser numbers, and the number of members isn't exactly a defining characteristic except in cases like barbershop quartets, string trios, most duos, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (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:Western Cape Province

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename:
  1. so that the main category name matches the main article at Western Cape.
  2. to establish uniformity of naming across the various subcategories.
  3. to match the way that the name is normally used, that is "XYZ (of/in/from) the Western Cape". For evidence of this usage see for example Provincial Government of the Western Cape or this news article.

- htonl (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The province name is Western Cape, not Western Cape Province. Including the word Province is like having categories "People from Kentucky State" or "People from the country Burkina Faso". Zaian (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It will make more sense and is the correct name. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Category:Provinces of South Africa, Category:People by province in South Africa, Category:Districts of South Africa, Category:Universities and colleges in South Africa. If the Western Cape categories are renamed, all categories for the other 8 provinces should be renamed too, for consistency. Zaian (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. (Though anyone else who wants to is, of course, also welcome to do so.) Do you think it would be better if we do it in one mass nomination, or as a separate nomination for each province? - htonl (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2008 (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:Podge and Rodge

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. Kbdank71 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NOMINATION (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with low growth potential. Even if the articles for their other shows and specials are added, there would still be no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (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:Antiheroes

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. While correct that lists and categories can co-exist, there is no mandate that they must co-exist. It is clear from this discussion that the consensus is that in this case, the list is preferable over the category. Kbdank71 13:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antiheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was speedy deleted recently as a recreation of a category previously deleted at CfD (see CfD1 and CfD2), but at DRV the argument was made that the previous CfD was too long ago to determine consensus. A full discussion would be helpful. Chick Bowen 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a stable or concrete characteristic, but rather a subjective evaluation of a very broad character type or fictional role. Lists remain preferred when it's a matter of documenting literary analysis, because it matters who is identifying the characters as such and why; such concepts regarding a character's role are often applied inconsistently, as List of fictional anti-heroes itself explains: "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero." There accordingly remains a strong consensus to delete or listify categories that attempt to classify fictional characters by such broad types or roles they supposedly play within fiction (see, e.g., this recent CFD regarding the instability of what constitutes a "supporting character") rather than by more concrete, specific traits. Concepts such as these are reliably definable in the general, but application to specific examples is meaningless when isolated from explanation or sourcing, which makes categories inappropriate as a means of grouping such purported examples. See also related CFDs regarding protagonists (and more protagonists), femme fatales, and antagonists. See also "Fictional anti-heroes" CFD for yet another prior deletion discussion on this category. Postdlf (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with all attributes, especially those attributed to fictional characters, we cannot rely on the subjective opinion of editors to apply the characteristic as a category. We need to follow the bedrock Wikipedia principal of using reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. While I have seen some goos research before the List of fictional anti-heroes provides nearly 200 reliable and verifiable sources for over 100 fictional characters. I had already begun the effort to review and refine these sources and to apply the category to the characters included therein. This is strong defining characteristic for the characters so defined, and there are hundreds of sources to support the claim. As with every single category, we need to ensure that the addition of the category is justified by sources, and with the research done here we have every opportunity to do so. Per WP:CLN, categories AND lists are intended to co-exist, providing an opportunity for all readers to navigate in the manner they find most useful. With the careful application of sources in these article, this is exactly the purpose that categories are intended to serve. I wish I had a category like this available when I had to write those "compare and contrast" papers back in school. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the subjective nature of the concept of "anti-hero". Yes, the original CFD was quite a while ago but there is no indication that consensus has changed regarding the use of subjective terminology in category names. Quite the contrary, since this was originally deleted the consensus has solidified and strengthened, as demonstrated by the subsequent deletion of a raft of similar categories labeling characters as "villains", "antagonists", "protagonists" and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the list cited by Alansohn appears substantial and well-sourced, a fine basis for a substantial category subject to Alansohn's requirements of each article. (The cfds cited by Otto above such as the excellent User:ProveIt/index#Villains seem short on argument and long on 'delete per nom' and 'per previous'. I confess that I did not read them all and so might have missed the odd nuance.) Occuli (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who follows the criteria for antihero is highly subjective. The list of antiheroes on Wikipedia is not undisputable fact. As it states, "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero." So, hypothetically, if the list were to include SpongeBob Squarepants as antihero because a reputable source were to call him such, that would be fine. But saying "SpongeBob is the antihero protagonist..." in his own article and then add him to the antiheroes category because of said opinion, that would be wrong.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Highly subjective and arbitrary in inclusion, too broad in scope, too vague in definition, etc. (See also several sections of WP:OC.) A well-sourced list, perhaps, but not a category. For further clarification, please take this essay into account with my comments. - jc37 05:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too subjective and broad to allow for a category with a satisfactory definition. Lists work best for this type of labeling that clearly requires solid references, because without them articles can't "self-evident[ly] and uncontroversial[ly]" be assigned to the category per WP:CLN. Judging by the results of similar CfDs that have occurred between the deletion of this one and this CfD, I don't think consensus has changed on categories of this type of broad label for fictional characters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder if this position is 'antithetical to classical heroism'? This is another one of those fictional character categories and I'm just not convinced that we can source this one as a category. If the characteristic is significant then create a list with proper citations. As CyberGhostface states, a mention in the article is not good enough proof. Reading the main article leaves me with the impression that inclusion based on that article would be rather subjective and quite possibly POV. I think the points made by Alansohn and in WP:CLN argue very strongly against a category here. If we need to be using reliable and verifiable sources then we need a list. A category does not provide a way to verify claims of membership. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (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:Current female...

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/merge per nom. Precedent on "current leaders" cats is not clear, some keep, some delete, but precedent on "current" cats is, as is rough consensus here. I agree with the comments on lists, that they can and should be more useful than they are, and as such, will not be listifying these. If anyone else wants to and needs the list of articles, please contact me. Kbdank71 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Current female national leaders to Category:Female national leaders
Suggest merging Category:Current female heads of state to Category:Female heads of state
Suggest merging Category:Current female heads of government to Category:Female heads of government
Nominator's rationale: Rename this and merge the other two - per consensus against maintaining current and former distinctions in these sorts of categories. Otto4711 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late! But I don't mind those. I do think national leaders worth keeping as they are. The trouble with lists is they tend not to be linked to on member's articles, so no-one ever realizes they are there. They are far from the cure-all some here believe. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your somewhat jaundiced take on the usefulness of lists. Cgingold (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There has been quite a bit of recent precedent for not having "current" categories for lower politicians. I agree that these "current leader" categories should definitely be maintained by lists, not categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American programs based on Israeli programs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per discussion and established format. Kbdank71 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American programs based on Israeli programs to Category:American television series based on Israeli television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per multiple recent CFRs, the proposed rename has become established as the preferred format for this type of category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (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:PETA

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. Kbdank71 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PETA to Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to expand the acronym. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (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:Culinary vegetables that are actually fruit

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. Kbdank71 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Culinary vegetables that are actually fruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - completely unnecessary and highly unlikely redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment both this cat and the one it directs to are not good names... "vegetable-like fruits" is problematic, as there is no good way of deciding of what "vegetable-like" means. A better name would be "Fruits which are sometimes considered vegetables" (removing the need to define vegetable-like, and requiring only an instance of a RS calling the fruit a vegetable). NJGW (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (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:Films with animal cruelty

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, incredibly vague and subjective, as noted. A sourced list might work better, but would need a better title, and a solid definition of "cruelty". Kbdank71 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films with animal cruelty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - far too subjective to serve as a basis for categorization. Some extremists believe that any use of an animal in film is cruelty. Otto4711 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (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:Punky Brewster

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. Kbdank71 13:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Punky Brewster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little to no prospects of expansion. One article has already been deleted and another is set to be deleted or merged. No need for a category for the show article and episode list. Otto4711 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2008 (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:Internet leak

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. Kbdank71 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Internet leak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't see how this category is useful. There's already a page internet leak, and even that needs to be merged into News leak. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:57, 24 October 2008 (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:WikiProject Renewable Energy

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, empty. Kbdank71 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Renewable Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a user test category. I considered a rename but could not find a real project. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2008 (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:Controversial films and filmmakers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Controversial films and filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Subjective inclusion criterion. Stepheng3 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (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:Farm & Ranch Supply Stores

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:Agricultural supply stores. Kbdank71 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Farm & Ranch Supply Stores to Category:Farm and ranch supply stores
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix capitalization and write out the conjunction. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also took a look at the Yellow Pages in a couple of local phone books (I'm in a rural area), and both of them put the listings for these stores under the heading of... "Feed dealers". [shakes head]
I hasten to add that we're certainly not bound by the G-hit results. Personally, I'd rather go with one of the two lower-ranked results, since they're both broader terms than the other two. Cgingold (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Rural department stores of the United States after reading all the article in this category what is its distinguishing feature, they all have a lead similar to "The stores sell farm supplies and parts, livestock equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, small appliances, housewares, automotive goods, plumbing, electrical, apparel, hardware, lawn and garden supplies, paint, pet supplies, sporting goods, and tools.." all are cross categorised in Category:Retail companies of the United States as is the category. Given the leads of these articles they could/should equally be categorize in Hardware, Department and Sporting Goods categories, even Home Improvment stores, though probably better to cross categorize the category. The category says they are Farm, Ranch and Country living supplies none of the articles truly reflect this description. The choice between Agricultural and Rural is that the stores in the category appear to be more for people living/playing in Rural areas but not primarily argicultural pursuits. The category description I'd suggest Department stores who specialise in supplying to rural communities including the provision of agricultural supplies. Gnangarra 12:11, 27 October 2008 (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:Fruit bats

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: I personally agree with Johnbod on this one, in my own limited experience, I've not heard of "megabat" either, but "fruit bat" I do recognize. However, the article is at megabat, and so for consistency, rename to Category:Megabats. To be reversed if/when the article is renamed, naturally. Kbdank71 13:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fruit bats to Category:megabats
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article's at megabat: fruit bat and Pteropodidae redirect there. Consistency one way or the other would seem to be desirable. Alai (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2008 (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/2008_October_24&oldid=1074801333"