Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 2



Category:Tuyas

 * 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

tuyas
 * Rename to Category:Tuya volcanoes for greater clarity, as "Tuya" is not a term that is familiar to the average reader. (See the CFD below, for the related Category:Maar volcanoes.)  Cgingold (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Query: should we also change Category:Diatremes to Category:Diatreme volcanoes, and Category:Malpaises to Category:Malpais landscapes? -- Avenue (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per rationale below. Occuli (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: These subglacial volcanoes are not normally called "tuya volcanoes", they are called "tuyas", same for diatremes, maars, etc. Those are the volcanological terms. Black Tusk (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Unless "tuya volcanoes" is actually wrong, the change is desirable for greater clarity. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do a simple google search. "tuya volcanoes" comes out with 7,090 results while "tuyas" come out with 2,060,000 results. Nevertheless "tuyas" is a more proper term and more commonly used. Black Tusk (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the number of G-hits you've cited for "tuyas" is hugely exaggerated, because "tuya" and "tuyas" have other non-volcano uses, making it necessary to include the words "volcano" & "volcanoes" separately in the search string. Determining the real usage ratio between the two basic terms we're discussing turns out to be unbelievably complicated, because it's necessary to look for all the variants and then separate the wheat from the chaff. I finally gave up trying to get meaningful stats from regular Google and turned to Google Scholar instead. It's still very tricky, but I finally concluded that "tuya volcano/es", though by no means improper, is not as widely used as "tuya/s" by a substantial margin. In the end, however, CFD decisions are not dictated by Google results alone -- so editors will have to weigh the various considerations and reach their own conclusion as to what is best. Cgingold (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly - my "rename" stands. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And my "keep" still stands. Black Tusk (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the first 100 G-hits for "tuya", all were either the kind of volcano, proper nouns, or in Spanish. I don't see any real scope for confusion here. -- Avenue (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope for confusion arises if you have no idea what a tuya is, which I'm sure if the case for 99% of our readers (including me until I saw this). Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe "tuya volcanoes" isn't wrong, but it certainly is ugly, and unnecessary. -- Avenue (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just ugly, but redundant. Everyone knows different things and for those that have lots of knowledge about volcanoes or volcano types would rather prefer "tuyas". I have been researching volcanoes for more than 3 years and I have NEVER seen "tuya volcanoes" used in geology papers or books, same for maars (i.e. maars, not maar volcanoes). Black Tusk (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a look at what turns up when you use Google Scholar. Cgingold (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, these volcanoes were named after Tuya Butte by volcanologist Bill Mathews. Thus "tuya" is the original term. Black Tusk (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom to match the head article, and because I am not convinced by the 'clarity' argument put forth against renaming. "Tuya" is the appropriate volcanological term; yes, it's a discipline-specific term, but that's no reason to introduce redundancy into the category name. Anyone who reaches the category will either have searched for it deliberately or have come from an article about a tuya; in either case, she will know that tuyas are volcanoes. As for the Google results, I think that there is simply too much "white noise" to be able to make meaningful inferences one way or the other. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Maar volcanoes

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Maar volcanoes to Category:Maars
 * Propose renaming Category:Maar volcanoes of Chile to Category:Maars of Chile
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "volcanoes" is redundant here. We have Category:Tuyas, not Category:Tuya volcanoes, so we should likewise have Category:Maars. Similarly, Category:Maar volcanoes of Chile should be Category:Maars of Chile. Avenue (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's still very tricky, in large part because "maar" is more commonly used as an adjective than as a stand-alone noun. I finally concluded that "maar volcano/es" is, in fact, widely used in the literature -- especially if you include the term "maar-diatreme volcano/es" -- and though it's difficult to give a truly definitive answer, it looks to me like "maar volcano/es" is probably more widely used in the literature than is "maar/s" alone. So in this case I would argue that both the real-world usage and the benefit of additional clarity support retaining the current category names. Cgingold (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming - "Maar" is not a term familiar to the average reader, so it is very helpful to include the word "volcanoes" -- especially since this is a Category name. I think the real problem is with Category:Tuyas, which should be renamed to Category:Tuya volcanoes. (see CFD above)  Cgingold (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition is only a couple of clicks away in each case, so I don't find this rationale very convincing. Should we change Category:Cnidarians to Category:Cnidarian animals, and so on? Where do you draw the line between familiar and unfamiliar? -- Avenue (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename – the article is at Maar and the parent category Category:Volcanoes gives us a clue. I agree with the estimable Cgingold that the term is obscure (but useful for scrabble); but there are plenty of obscure category names. I can't offhand think of any reason why one should be blundering mistakenly into Category:Maars unless in search of Baars. Occuli (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename - See my comment above. Black Tusk (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Maar volcanoes or Maars, I don't care. As long as we're not deleting the category. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless "Maar volcanoes" is actually wrong, the change is undesirable for greater clarity. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not wrong. Maybe a tad redundant.  Every maar is technically a volcano, whether active or not.  But a lot of people may not actually know that maars are volcanic.  So it could be argued either way, I suppose.  I wouldn't oppose renaming to Maars as long as the category itself is in Category:Volcanoes and every entry is a true volcanic maar.  I mean, I've never heard of a non-volcanic lake being called a maar, but I don't really know if that's done or not. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do a simple google search. "maar volcanoes" comes out with 37,900 results while "maars" come out with 360,000 results. Nevertheless "maars" is a more proper term and more commonly used. Black Tusk (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As was the case with "tuyas", the number of G-hits you've cited for "maars" is hugely exaggerated because it has a whole lot of other non-volcano uses, making it necessary to include the words "volcano" & "volcanoes" separately in the search string. As I said above, "Determining the real usage ratio between the two basic terms we're discussing turns out to be unbelievably complicated, because it's necessary to look for all the variants and then separate the wheat from the chaff. I finally gave up trying to get meaningful stats from regular Google and turned to Google Scholar instead."
 * Exactly - and 38K ghits is a very respectable figure indeed. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My "rename" still stands. Black Tusk (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to match the head article, and because I am not convinced by the 'clarity' argument put forth against renaming. "Maar" is the appropriate volcanological term; yes, it's a discipline-specific term, but that's no reason to introduce redundancy into the category name. Anyone who reaches the category will either have searched for it deliberately or have come from an article about a maar; in either case, she will know that maars are volcanic. As for the Google results, I think that there is simply too much "white noise" to be able to make meaningful inferences. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: The article Maar notes that "[a] maar is a broad, low-relief volcanic crater". Is it accurate to equate "volcanic crater" with "volcano"? Are maars volcanic landforms or actual volcanoes? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. These are landforms and not really volcanoes per the article. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In light of the reframing of the issue by Black Falcon & Vegaswikian, I am reconsidering my position. The primary question, it seems to me, is whether the things we're categorizing are solely the craters themselves -- i.e. volcanic remnants. If so, then it would not seem to be appropriate to refer to them as "volcanoes". I think the underlying problem is that there's no clear dividing line between active or dormant volcanoes and truly extinct volcanoes. Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:New metal

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * new metal


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Direct copy of nu metal, which seems to be the MO of this particular user. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's an exact copy of the article called Nu metal. Very strange. I've tagged it for Speedy Deletion. Cgingold (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Abduction phenomenon

 * 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:Alien abduction phenomenon. Kbdank71 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Abduction phenomenon to Category:UFO-related abduction phenomena
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This has nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome etc. This needs pluralization. This should be renamed to match parent Category:UFO-related phenomena 76.66.193.90 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As you're aware (since you posted a comment) there's an open CFD for a related category, where I raised the issue of this category and pointed out that any renaming needs to be done in conjunction with revisiting the name of the main article, recently renamed to Alien abduction. I purposely held off on opening a CFD to rename this category until that issue is squared away. My feeling is that you've jumped the gun here, so I think it would probably be best to close this discussion for now, and open a new CFD once we've settled on a stable name for the main article. If you're amenable to that, please let me know and I will take care of closing it out. (And I promise that I will leave a note at your talk page when I open the new CFD.) Cgingold (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment you didn't mark this with a CFR notice, which a joint nomination would entail. Plus there are other issues with this category, such as being in the singular form. This is also parented only in the UFO hierarchy, not the kidnapping hierarchy. Aside from that, the was already nominated previously, before your nomination of abduction claims. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Alien abduction which matches the article (Abduction phenomenon redirects to Abduction, which is a dab including kidnapping - which no one but WP would call a "phenomenon"). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:UFO-related abduction phenomenon or Category:Alien abduction phenomenon. I can see arguments for either one. For one thing, this is a child cat of Category:Ufology. (And I seem to recall that "UFO-related" was the result of a previous CfD discussion consensus.) But on the other hand, matching the article name is something we try to do at CfD. (And I suppose it's "possible" that there are alien abduction situations which don't involve UFOs, but those whould still be under the purview of Ufologists, which I guess makes that argument moot...) - jc37 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed targets to phenomenon, per Cgingold's comments below. - jc37 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Alien abduction phenomenon. UFO-related is too long without much gain in clarity, and the "related" is an odd choice in my mind.  "Alien abduction" is too positivist in my mind - makes it sound like there's not a huge debate over whether it is real or not.  "Phenomenon" chunks it as a cultural or social phenomenon, rather than (an) actual, factual event(s).  I still believe that it's a better name for the main page as well but that's neither here nor there.  Cgingold's comment below about the category target (the unitary cultural phenomenon rather than many phenomena) is also a good one in my mind - it's not about discussing individual abduction accounts or allegations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] As I've suggested elsewhere, I think that ultimately this category should be renamed to . (That's singular, not plural, because it's about the phenomenon [singular] known as "Alien abduction" - not about multiple "Alien abduction phenomena".) So I'm not entirely sure that it matters what happens in this particular CFD, which doesn't seem to be heading toward concensus in any event. Cgingold (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Sportspeople who served in the military

 * 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) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

sportspeople who served in the military
 * Delete - I don't see anything especially noteworthy about this intersection. People from all walks of life have served in the military, but I don't expect and hope not to see categories for shopkeepers or stockbrokers or school teachers who have served in the military.  Cgingold (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As with the KIA category below, this is a case of overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - agreed that it's trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Sportspeople killed in action

 * 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) 04:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Sportspeople killed in action to Category:Sportspeople who served in the military and Category:Military personnel killed in action
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection. Being a sportsperson and being KIA are ultimately unrelated characteristics. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as needed to Category:Military personnel killed in action, but not to Category:Sportspeople who served in the military, which I have just nominated for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, it seems your hunch was right and an actual merge into Category:Military personnel killed in action is not needed, since all of the categories are already in a "[Nationality] military personnel killed in [War]" category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - one merge target is covered already and the other should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete these were military people killed in action who happened to have formerly been sportspeople; little different than Category:Typists killed in action and the like as many people had done something prior to enlisting/being drafted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.