Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 3



Category:Internet manipulation and propaganda

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Internet manipulation and propaganda to Category:Internet propaganda
 * Nominator's rationale: The "Internet manipulation" half of this category name seems at best redundant, at worst setting up a category that contains an unclear mix of two similar-but-different subjects. McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsure at this point. But shouldn't the proposed target be Category:Sockpuppets (Internet) which is what most of these are? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the target could not more simply be Category:Internet sockpuppets, per WP:NATURALDIS? Though if so the main article Sockpuppet (Internet) would have to change, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Shawn on this -- parenthetical terms should be avoided when possible. Category:Internet sockpuppets would be better than Category:Sockpuppets (Internet). Cgingold (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we move the article, then I think we are in agreement. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to go ahead and boldly move it, but cannot. It requires an administrator's action. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this suggestion: nobody calls them "Internet sockpuppets", just "sockpuppets", thus the current title is the correct one. If it's to be moved it should go through WP:RM. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Propaganda is only one part of it. Recent revelations by Snowden also reveal specific strategies for infiltrating and disrupting the work of dissidents - it's part of the same concept, but goes rather beyond mere "propaganda". Esn (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. If you must, rename it to something like "sockpuppet programs" or "mass sockpuppet operations". All of what's in there now can fall under that, even if it doesn't always describe the full picture. The main point is that it should include both state-sponsored and privately-sponsored large programs of this sort (I believe that was the original intention of the editor in starting the category, but perhaps that editor should make a comment...). Esn (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (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.

Several multiplane categories

 * 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 Quadruplanes, merge the rest. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Quintuplanes to Category:Multiplane aircraft
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most of these categories have only one member. These are all just types of multiplane and, both historically and aerdoynamically, the number of planes beyond four (the quadruplane) is not significant. Comment: Quadruplanes represent a marginal case historically and the cat has four members, so I thought it best to include it in the discussion [Update: but am not voting either way on this one].

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The relevant categories are:
 * Category:Quadruplanes
 * Category:Quintuplanes
 * Category:Sextuplanes
 * Category:Heptaplanes

For the preliminary discussion, see Category_talk:Multiplane_aircraft &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, small categories that are part of a clearly established category tree are acceptable, regardless of the number of articles in them. These are a clearly established category tree, and the argument that the number of wings on an aircraft is "not significant" is one I simply cannot understand - it is, in fact, one of the most WP:DEFINING characteristics of an aircraft, and sorting by defining characteristics is what categorisation is all about. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The SMALLCAT exemption applies only where "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," (my bold) and that is not the case for most of these - the accepted classification has never gone beyond four planes. Should we create Category:Duocentaplanes and so on for the Horatio Phillips multiplanes, the AEA Cygnet II and so on? No, this is just dancing on a pin head. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When a categorisation scheme is in place for 11 months without comment or complaint, it has become accepted. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that, just because I didn't complain sooner, I have lost the rationale for challenging it? That hardly seems objective. One could argue that they are so trivial it took eleven months for anybody who understands the subject to even notice them. It also seems hard to reconcile with this comment of yours in the preceding discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, just pointing out that that particular rationaile isn't as appropriate as it could be; no trouble with reconciling at all. Also, once again, the number of wings on an aircraft is not trivial. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose 'Category:Quadruplanes'  quite possible to be able to gain additional members. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose quadraplanes, agree for others Surely the point of cetegories is to group things together. This is not done if the categories only contain a single item. There are so few multiplanes with more than four wings that they can easily be included in a single category. The present categorisation stuctute is in any case incomplete: there isn't a cat for nine-winged aircraft...and there is (at least) one such machine, the Caproni Ca.60. At some point the categorisation by exact number has to stop. Look at the Phillips machines.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that isn't a novemplane, it's a (doubly) tandem triplane, and is appropraitely categorised as such. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. I see the Fokker V.8 is in both Category:Quintuplanes & a Category:tandem wing aircraft: are the categories mutually exclusive?TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, as in some cases it's a judgement call based on the sources: the V.8 is referred to as a quintuplane in the sources, but is also a tandem-wing type. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge – "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". This is a tiny scheme, with a handful of articles altogether. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge all -- Biplanes are obsolete, but there were a lot. Triplanes were rather less efficient.  The rest should essentially be oddities.  I would suggest that we keep categories on biplanes and triplanes but make them subcategories of the merge target.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment whatever makes you think biplanes are obsolete? They are still being manufactured. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summary to date:
 * Category:Quadruplane: Merge 2, Oppose 3, (1 abstain).
 * Quintuplane, Sextuplane, Heptaplane: Merge 4, Oppose 1, (1 abstain).


 * 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:Haunted attractions

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. The discussion at Talk:Haunted attraction (simulated) has petered out, which I take as acceptance of the new name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Haunted attractions to Category:Haunted attractions (simulated)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. As this category stands, it is a mixture of haunted attractions (i.e., theme park rides and the like) and "real" reportedly haunted locations which attract tourists. Although the article name is "Haunted attraction", it is easy to redirect people using hatnotes on an article (as indeed happens with this article). Despite wording at the top of the category, items which should be going into keep ending up in here. I'd suggest a rename to  or similar. Grutness...wha?  00:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've renamed the key article - the "what links here" list was similarly confused as to what the article was about. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: if a few articles have been miscategorised here instead of into Category:Reportedly haunted locations, they should be corrected. The implied category of "non-simulated haunted attractions" seems confusing, and your unilateral main-article rename has since been questioned. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to keep on renaming articles that come in here incorrectly? Surely the fact that some do is indication enough that the current name is ambiguous. I had to remove quite a few articles in this category because of this ambiguity. As to "non-simulated hanted attraction" seeming confusing, surely it's clear and obvious what it refers to - a building reputed to be haunted which is an attraction, as opposed to one which is operated as an attraction where the "hauntings" are deliberately simulated. Grutness...wha?  00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename The name is too ambiguous to work well for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2014 (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.