Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 2



Category:Darwin celebrations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy rename C2B. The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Darwin celebrations to Category:Charles Darwin celebrations
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous, could mean celebrations in one of the places called Darwin. Tim! (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom to avoid ambiguity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 3 June 2012 (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:South African Party (Union of South Africa) politicians

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:South African Party (Union of South Africa) politicians to Category:South African Party politicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To correspond with the result of the move discussion at Talk:South African Party (disambiguation) in which the Union party was determined to be the primary topic for that title. htonl (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To cap the inherent ambiguity of the phrase, there are also two other similarly-named parties: South African Party (Cape Colony) and South African Party (Republic of South Africa). This degree of ambiguity is a disaster in category space. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There might be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the article, but this is a case where the category should remain disambiguated. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. It's overwhelmingly the primary topic, and it only adds confusion to have the category use a different name than the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: it should be noted that the SAP of the Cape Colony only existed for two years before the Union and became part of the SAP of the Union. Hence virtually all the politicians of the Cape SAP also became politicians of the Union SAP. The only member of Category:South African Party (Cape Colony) politicians is John X. Merriman, who could validly be (though is not currently) included in Category:South African Party (Union of South Africa) politicians. - htonl (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The phrase "South African Party politicians" is distinguished from "South African party politicians" only the capitalisation of one letter, but the two phrases have very different meanings -- the latter refers to all politicians in South Africa who are members of a political party, and adopting it will lead to miscategorisation.
 * Oppose to easy for people to assume this is a holding category for all politicians in South Africa who are part of some party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2012 (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.

Marathons in X

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Marathons in Argentina
 * Category:Marathons in Lithuania
 * Category:Marathons in Pakistan
 * Category:Marathons in Singapore
 * Category:Marathons in Slovenia
 * Category:Marathons in the United Arab Emirates
 * These categories are destined never to contain more than a handful of articles. Therefore, it would be more useful to place these articles in their parent categories of "Athletics in country" and "Marathons in continent". Note that is not a move to depopulate Category:Marathons by country, where there are valid instances of this categorisation (100+ American marathons, 10+ for Italy, Germany, Japan etc). SFB 12:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is Often a category structure by country will have very small subcats (in some cases, just a single article in a category) and this is an established scheme. Who's to say that 10+ is OK to have a category or not? What if there is 9 marathons in a country? Is that too few? Moving them to "Athletics in country" and "Marathons in continent" is confusing to the novice as to the rationale behind the categorisation.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My rationale is not by number, but by significance. Marathons in South Korea (5 entries) should remain because Marathons in South Korea is a valid topic due to its importance in the history of the topic. Marathons in Slovenia on the other hand is implausible as a real topic because it is confined to two relatively new races. SFB 10:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP: Smallcat. Category is well defined, part of an overall scheme, and will gradually expand as time goes on. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Smallcat, marathons by country is not a large sub-categorisation scheme. Also, there is virtually no room for growth as these topics do not contain any further notable marathons that we have not covered. SFB 10:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not exactly true. See sl:Seznam maratonov v Sloveniji for some other notable marathons in Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 18:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, as thi sis, indeed, a suitably large scheme. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Brad7777 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this is part of a larger scheme. Anyway, I am unconvinced that in Pakistan, a country of over 150 million people there has only ever been one notable marathon.  That is very suspect to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (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:European "Years"

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. This probably does need renaming, but it's clear this isn't it. Feel free to immediately renominate if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:European "Years" to Category:European Union observances
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is awkward, the best named similar category I can find is Category:United Nations observances. Tim! (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- This covers both the European Union and the Council of Europe, which has a much wider membership. It may need to be split, and a rename may be desirable, but not as nom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Peterkingiron. The proposed new name would be inaccurate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the category's description all of its members are observed by the EU; the European Year of Languages is observed by the EU, the Council of Europe and UNESCO. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (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:Railway stations by year of establishment

 * 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:Railway stations by opening year. The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Railway stations by year of establishment to Category:Railway stations by year of opening
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. More consistent with its children. Tim! (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment wouldn't Category:Railway stations by opening year or Category:Railway stations opened by year be even better? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Any of these names would be more consistent with the names of the children than the current name is, and the nominator's suggested wording is the best combination for clarity of meaning, lack of ambiguity, and lack of awkwardness. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Railway stations by opening year. While I think my other suggestion might read better, this one is likely clearer and better then the one proposed.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2012 (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.

Establishments in Northern Ireland by year

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Upmerge/Rename. For the 558 category upmerge to the most appropriate replacement parents in the Ireland tree and for the 1856 one rename per nom.  The reason for this difference is the existing categories for those time periods.  It is not reasonable to create single entry categories when there is little chance for populating the new ones created or any of the surrounding ones. There are many issues raised in this discussion that need following up on.  These include the correct category names for stuff prior to the establishment of Ireland and Northern Ireland.  As suggested below, a discussion on Category:Centuries in Northern Ireland might be a starting point for continued discussions.  Also the discussion raises the point about what Category:Centuries in Ireland is for.  Is it the country or the island or both?  Fell free to discuss what to do and afterwards, bring the recommendations back here if desired. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:558 establishments in Northern Ireland to Category:558 establishments in Ireland
 * Propose renaming Category:1856 establishments in Northern Ireland to Category:1856 establishments in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Northern Ireland was not established until 1921. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ireland wasn't established in 558, or in 1856. Upmerge to ":Category:558 establishments in the British Isles", and "1856 establishments in the United Kingdom". Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments – the nom should address Category:Centuries in Northern Ireland as more needs upmerging (probably to existing 'Ireland' categories IMO); eg Category:1856 establishments in Northern Ireland could be merged to Category:1850s establishments in Ireland. Ireland is the island and has been there for some time, reflected by Category:Centuries in Ireland. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * upmerge I was opposed to the renaming of the 17th century in the UK one, but in this case, I think Ireland is a sufficiently specific geographic category that captures this well enough.--KarlB (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No objection to adding the proposed categories to the pages in the categories as well though, if wanted. The cats indicate what happened in current countries in the past. The same happens for e.g. Italy or Germany, we don't divide those into categories reflecting the principality, land, fief, empire, republic, state, ... that happened to be ruling that particular piece of German or Italian geography at that time in history, but according to their current country. E.g. Category:1132 in Italy is a logical category, even though their was no "Italy" at the time. Fram (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For your logic to be consistent there should be a Category:558 establishments in the United Kingdom as a parent and I note you have not created that. It also goes against practice for the year category to use the name of state at the time of the year see for example Category:Years of the 20th century in Benin which uses French Dahomey and Republic of Dahomey for the earlier years. Tim! (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't go against practice, there is no accepted common practice. Some categories are named after the current countries, some after the country (or equivalent) which existed at the time. E.g. Norway didn't exist (as such) between 1380 and 1814, but we have categories like Category:16th-century Norwegian people. The same goes for e.g. Germany or Italy. The question should be: what are the readers interested in. Do they want to see what happened in a current country in the past, or do they want to see the more historically correct contemporary divisions? Or, of course, do both groups exists and can both be served somehow? It seems to me as if we are going too far into the "historically correct" pedantic mode sometimes, while ignoring the fact that many people want to see the history of their (or another) "current" country, they want to map history onto the current map. If people claim that there are traces of prehistoric life found in Berlin, they don't mean that Berlin (or Germany) existed at the time, they just naturally link the ancient history to the current situation. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that. Fram (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram's objection is based on a false parallel. The concept of Italy and Germany existed before the creation of those two unitary states in the 19th-century, but as Fram points out there is no NPOV of defining what teriitory those terms encompassed before the states existed. OTOH, the island of Ireland has been an island with stable boundaries since before recorded history (see Prehistoric Ireland), and it was in theory a unified political entity from the creation of the Lordship of Ireland in 1177. The succeeding Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1801) also claimed jurisdiction over the whole island, and attained it for the latter part of that period. Even after the Act of Union, Ireland remained a distinct unit; it was not directly governed by the govt in London, but through the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename both per nominator. The application of the term "Northern Ireland" to these periods is an anachronism. The problem is not merely that Northern Ireland came into existence in 1921, as the nominator correctly noted. The term didn't exist until the 20th century. A brief and crude summary: a narrow majority in the 9-county province of Ulster had rejected Home Rule Bills since the 1880s, but the concept of a smaller six-county Northern Ireland emerged only in 1914, in the processes leading up to the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (see Government of Ireland Act 1914). The initial proposal in 1914 was for the exclusion of the whole of the province of Ulster, and the idea of a smaller area to be excluded arose only during the Parliamentary process in 1914.
 * WikiProject Northern Ireland and WikiProject Ireland have both been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:558 establishments in Northern Ireland to Category:6th century establishments in Ireland and delete the by decade category. Category:1856 establishments in Northern Ireland to Category:1850s establishments in Ireland.  Northern Ireland is an anachronism before 1922.  If we need to split Ireland before then it should be by the four provinces - Ulster has 8 or 9 counties, of which only 6 are in NI.  Annual categories are inappropriate at remote periods, and in many cases so are those by decade.  Possibly we could be having a double merger, also to Category:558 establishments.  Note the only member of Category:6th century establishments in Ireland is Kells Abbey (of 554).  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support in principle the suggested merger of the 558 category, and possibly also of the 1856 category. However, there has been a recent series of CFDs which have sought to remove by-decade categories, some of which have been successful. I consider those deletions mistaken, but the result is that by-decade categories are at least unstable, so I think that a wider discussion is needed on the suitability or otherwise of decade categories in this field. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename both - per nom. Snappy (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to basic establishment category for 558. There is no reason to subdivide establishment by country before 1500.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we should not categorize anything as happening in Northern Ireland before 1923. Northern Ireland did not exist, so nothing can be established there then.  What next Category:1850 establishments in the Soviet Union?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do the same for many other current countries (the SU is not a current country obviously), so where do you draw the line? Which countries may be used historically, and which ones shouldn't be used like that? England didn't exist in the 6th century, but we have Category:6th-century English people. Why can England be used before 927, Italy before 1861 and Germany before 1871, but Northern Ireland not before 1923? The cats can obviously be subcats from another entity of which it was part during said years (just like e.g. cats for Russia are subcats of Soviet Union cats while that country existed), but why make it harder for people interested in the earlier history of what is now Northern Ireland to find the necessary info through categories? What is actually "gained" for the readers by removing these cats? Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Northern Ireland here is defining a geographical location (more specific than the island of Ireland) for locating establishments. The politics does not come into it. Brad7777 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC) If anything they should be upmerged to Category:1850s establishments in Northern Ireland and Category:6th-century establishments in Northern Ireland Brad7777 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete both - There is a whole whole tree of Category:1st millennium in Northern Ireland, which works its way down to Category:558 establishments in Northern Ireland. Essentially a huge tree which, in the end, really only holds this one category, which only holds one member: Bangor Abbey. As for the 1856 cat. it also has a tree (though incomplete, with redlinked cats holding sub-cats), apparently all created to, in the end, hold Fintona Junction railway station. So two big trees for a grand total of one page each. And both establishments were established before Northern Ireland itself was established. I re-affirm: Delete both categories, and once deleted, delete the rest of each tree as G6 and/or G8. - jc37 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was working on populating these and many other (less controversial) similar trees, but was asked to elay this until there was more clarity about what was wanted and acceptable. At least for the 1856 cat, many more similar ones could be found, making it part of a well populated group of cats. Note that it is also a direct member of trees like Category:1856 establishments by country: when looking at cats, please don't only look at one line of parents, but at all parents, to judge whether it is part of a well-populated tree or not. 06:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which still doesn't address the fact that there was no such country as Northern Ireland in 588. (And sorry, really disinterested in nationalistic or even historic debate concerning counties in Ireland, or, for that matter, Hibernia.) - jc37 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which no one has ever claimed of course (and not interested in any nationalism either). It's about things that happened in what is currently Northern Ireland (or England, China, Russia, Italy, Luxembourg, whatever), no matter what the actual governing entity was at the time of the event. It's looking at history from a current politico-geographical perspective. Other perspectives (especially the contemporary one) are equally valid and no one is (as far as I know) replacing the contemporary one with the current one; they can live next to each other, or (for the easy cases) embedded in one another. Fram (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2012 (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:Smile Records albums

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete, but only because it is empty. If anyone wants to create Category:Smile Records (United States) albums, they may do so without prejudice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting smile records albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Category based on non-notable topic. SFB 12:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note Redlink is now a dab page. Nom is now Rename to Category:Smile Records (United States) albums per main article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Still delete In spite of the changes, I still think this should be deleted. I can't see this category ever containing more than three or four entries. The label consists of four groups signed up well past their charting days and a group of non-notables. I pass no comment on notability of the article. SFB 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response This would be kept per WP:SMALLCAT, right? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. Also note that the category appears to have been emptied out of process, so a trout to whoever did that... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 9 June 2012 (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:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over

 * 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:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over to Category:Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concern
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's been pointed out the this category is in need of some grammar corrections. The talk page has already been moved - I'm bringing this here for wider discussion. Avic ennasis @ 04:28, 12 Sivan 5772 / 04:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - "The talk page has already been moved." Why? This has resulted in an unattached talk page that is open to speedy deletion under db-talk. When a page is moved, its talk page is automatically moved with it. I have moved it back to match. With respect to the proposed rename, I have no strong opinions either way. Both expressions are acceptable English in my part of the world. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. No need to make an already long category name even longer through petty prepositional pedantry. (I feel as if this discussion has been had before...) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename - Let's do away with the current title: how about Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues instead? It is shorter than both the current and proposed title. It also removes the reference to a concerned third party – this is unnecessary, hence why we have Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest, not Category:Wikipedia articles over which editors have expressed a concern over a possible conflict of interest (!). This should bring the username category into a similar title style as other admin cats. SFB 12:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this idea! Avic ennasis @ 16:35, 12 Sivan 5772 / 16:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Firstly, an apology. I was the editor who moved the talk page, and was obviously having a "special day" and neglected to move the actual project page. Clearly needed a day off. Anyway, I don't consider the concern I raised to be "pedantic". I don't go around shouting at people when they demote a preposition to the end of a sentence in every day speech, but this isn't every day speech - this is an encyclopaedia that we're trying to build, and observation of proper grammar is important (even if the page in question isn't in article namespace). That said, I think the best option is that suggested by SFB above; such a new title would be more accurate and simpler. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues per SFB. This is better grammar than the current name, simpler and clearer than the nominator's improvement, and a better fit with other similar categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to SFB's Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. Shorter, more consistent. NTox · talk 21:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a second thought: would the 'Wikipedia' word even be necessary? What about Category:Usernames with possible policy issues? NTox · talk 23:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word "Wikipedian" is needed. Without it, this category could be applied to articles on users or usernames in many other contexts, such as other WEB 2.0 sites. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 6 June 2012 (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.