Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:13, 19 February 2014 editSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →Squamish← Previous edit Revision as of 17:15, 19 February 2014 edit undoSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →SquamishNext edit →
Line 72: Line 72:
:::::]. -] (]) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi :::::]. -] (]) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
::::::"Illinois Confederacy" is a political alliance category, and only by extension includes ethnographic articles. This falls in with your equally weak and out of place suggestion that "Squamish Nation" should be the ethno category title, even though that's the name of the whiteman-imposed government.... there's a lot of inconsistencies across IPNA names and categories, you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories, saying I had not enough knowledge to work on that area, and then yet you wade in here, clearly without any knowledge of the people or the geography at all, and start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this ''bad'' choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about.] (]) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) ::::::"Illinois Confederacy" is a political alliance category, and only by extension includes ethnographic articles. This falls in with your equally weak and out of place suggestion that "Squamish Nation" should be the ethno category title, even though that's the name of the whiteman-imposed government.... there's a lot of inconsistencies across IPNA names and categories, you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories, saying I had not enough knowledge to work on that area, and then yet you wade in here, clearly without any knowledge of the people or the geography at all, and start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this ''bad'' choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about.] (]) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Instead of doing what too many Wikipedians do, screwing around with category and article names without even knowing the subject matter, why don't you actually work on improving BC First Nations articles and learning about the subject matter and cultural/political realities and language/nomenclature used before pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??] (]) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


==== Category:New Zealand 3D films ==== ==== Category:New Zealand 3D films ====

Revision as of 17:15, 19 February 2014

< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Anti-FGM activists

Nominator's rationale: I believe there was rough consensus to rename this to match the head article at Female genital mutilation, so separating this out to come to a clear consensus. we will deal with the victims category separately. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close, I believe that strong arguments are more important than head-count. The acronym is widely known there is no problem with the current title. Even though i also supported the previous move attempt, myself and another supporter did not provide strong support for it, and it was mostly indifference. Pass a Method talk 16:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Nonetheless, in the interest of clarity we should spell it out - your argument could be used to move Female genital mutilation to FGM - we normally use redirects for such acronyms, but we don't use redirects for categories that much, the category names are sometimes explicitly more clear than even article names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Montgomery Gentry

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT, unnecessary artist category with only albums and songs. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Misplaced Pages

Nominator's rationale: This category is attached to a bunch of articles and also to a bunch of WP: internal pages such as guidelines. I think we don't do hybrid categories like this. Right? Or shouldn't. This would be confusing the reader, we do not want to blur the line between articles and internal guidelines. The second category Category:Conflict-of-interest editing could be used for internal pages. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:People who have walked on the Moon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name is shorter and likely, prettier, without loosing any correctness. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Georgian rugby union teams

Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Georgia (country). There is no unambiguous adjectival form for Georgia (country) – "Georgian" could mean either the country or Georgia (U.S. state) – so it always has to be an exception to categories which take the adjectival form.
See for example Category:Rugby union players by nationality, which is all adjectival except for Category:Rugby union players from Georgia (country). Same for Category:Sportspeople by nationality, which is all adjectival except for Category:Sportspeople from Georgia (country).
This was initially nominated for speedy renaming, but opposed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
PS Category:Georgian rugby union teams was created in 2010. The target Category:Rugby union teams from Georgia (country) was created 4 years later, in January 2014. AFAICS, none of the articles in were moved from the pre-existing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copy of speedy nomination
Other examples of by-nationality categories which use an adjectival format with an exception for Georgia (country):
... and lots of sub-categories of Category:People from Georgia (country) by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bridge disambiguation pages

Nominator's rationale: Readers are not expected to (use categories to) try to find disambiguation pages (which are not articles). Dab pages aren't about a topic (e.g. even a dab page with a name containing the word "Bridge" may have entries that aren't bridges - example). Groups of editors (i.e. wikiprojects) may have an interest in a dab page (just like any other page) and can use a talk page (i.e. editor-side) category. Currently WP:BRIDGE don't have a category specifically for dab pages that interest them, but they do put some dab pages (e.g. Burma bridge and Champlain Bridge) in Category:NA-Class Bridge articles. Thus, we currently have two (partly overlapping) categories for "bridge" dab pages (which is inefficient and confusing). This type of category (added manually to dab pages) is also discouraged by the parent category (CAT:DABP#Notes). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a disambiguation page category is Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Category:Saint_Petersburg_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Squamish

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category name was decided clearly unworkable in the CfD closed May 4, 2013 by User:Fayenatic London because of its geographic ambiguities and the overarching reality that the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish" in English is not the people but the town of that name. I have advised the editor who created this category a few days ago, and who claims to have read that CfD, of the problems caused by it, she is unrepentant about the complications, claims to have read the CfD (but clearly didn't understand it) and says glibly ""If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing." Myself I'd rather see this back at Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, including the diacriticals, than live with the awkwardness of Category:Squamish people, and have proposed before that Category:Skwxwu7mesh be used in "anglicized" form similar to Category:St'at'imc, Category:Sto:lo and others in Category:First Nations in British Columbia but there is not enough usage in English of the "Skwxwu7mesh" version of the name, such as there is for the other examples. In any case, re-creating this category name was ill-advised and since its creator shows no signs of trying to correct their mistake, I have emptied the new category and changed back the category description on Category:Squamish people which she altered irrespective of what the CfD said. This mis-named redirect category Category:Skwxwu7mesh is also nominated for deletion, it was apparently made of a mis-spelled usage of it in one of my communications to her. Interloping on such category names by people not familiar with the topics and contexts involved to prevent such further arbitrary problem-spreading needs to be formalized. That there is a new section of MOS re article style, though not about categories, that goes should be considered re User:OldManRiver's original creation, as reigning wiki-expert on his people no less, re Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or an "anglicized" Category:Skwxwu7mesh to be adopted over Category:Squamish people, but for now Category:Squamish was created unilaterally by someone with no knowledge of the field and no concern for what the CfD had been about, and should be deleted as a violation of process, likewise the intermediary Category:Skwxwu7mesh though, again, that title is the preferred one to this editor. The bit from MOS about original style I may use as t he basis for an RM to move Squamish people back to Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or Skwxwu7mesh in which case this could just be speedied. But for now the violation of protocol caused by ignoring the May 4, 2013 CfD cannot be tolerated; if she can do that, then why couldn't I have just ignored the CfD and created and populated Category:Skwxwu7mesh by myself and ignored all procedure? Or can Misplaced Pages decisions by overturned by the whim of anyone, experienced editor or not? I should note that User:OldManRivers has long since tired of the name-games about his people and does not come here very often anymore, and also note that in the the RM that changed his original article title to Squamish people included the boast that "since he's not around anymore we don't have to go by what he wanted" or something to that effect...the RM IMO was faulty, and the category name changed by speedy without any discussion despite all the complications arising as a result.Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedily delete and salt the ambiguous Category:Squamish per WP:G4 following Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Category:Squamish, which I closed. As for the other: the Squamish are almost alone among Category:First Nations in British Columbia in not having a sub-cat for individual biographies, and I think this should be remedied. We could either (A) keep Category:Squamish people as the parent category including culture and locations, adding perhaps Category:Ethnic Squamish people as the sub-cat for bios; or (B) adopt Category:Skwxwu7mesh as the parent, and use Category:Squamish people for individual bios, despite the main article for the parent being at Squamish people. Note that the 7 is a pronunciation mark, like the colon which is retained in Sto:lo despite removal of diacritics at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_3#Sto:lo_categories and the two discussions above that. I incline to (B), which could have been the outcome last year if Skookum1 had delivered on what he promised about sources, instead of pouring so much energy into complaining about other editors. Either way, if somebody can find a way to close this speedily, that would save Skookum1 filling up Misplaced Pages's servers with walls of text. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply I will do a cite survey of the Skwxwu7mesh usage but I doubt it will outweigh "Squamish" at this point, though other similar endonyms are now common in BC. It's by far the least ambiguous of all outcomes, and please note for individual biographies "Skwxwu7mesh people" is obvious enough, and "Squamish people" can mean "people from the town of Squamish" (I can't explain to you how odd "Squamish culture" sounds...I'll let you guess). "Ethnic Squamish people" is the only other title for that (almost) but it would be anomalous among BC FN groups for individuals; "people of Squamish descent" is how some non-native Canadian ethnicities are handled, it still has ambiguities because of the overarching meaning of Squamish as the town. I must re-iterate about the RM that precipitated this, though, that many of the arguments poised there were not acceptable and should not have been reckoned into the decision, and that the kneejerk speedy to Category:Squamish seems to have been done in over-haste; and that reverting the main ethnic people article to what its creator deemed most appropriate should outweigh late-comer opinions/decisions on the matter; that would mean the diacritical version of the title, but it is by far preferable to the confusions cause by "Squamish people" as either article or category title.Skookum1 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • For the record, there are about 16,700 results when the google search is "skwxwu7mesh -wikipedia"....more than there was a year ago, but many of the results mentions of the title of OMR's book/paper, though there are FB groups and art gallery writeups which use it now, also. Skookum1 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - This was previously deleted as mentioned above and should have never been recreated. It is far too general given the listing at the Squamish disambiguation page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hi, I split Category:Squamish people into two categories, Category:Squamish for articles pertaining to the ethnic group/Nation/geography, and Category:Squamish people, for the individual people's biographies. Could everyone please look at the subcats in Category:First Nations people, Category:Native American people by tribe, and Category:Indigenous people of the Americas. There are over a hundred pre-existing "people" (singular) subcats populated by individual biographies of members of the ethnic group in question. If you want to rename Category:Squamish to Category:Squamish Nation, Category:Squamish First Nations, Category:Squamish peoples (pluralized), etc., that's totally fine with me; I don't care. But please do look at the other First Nations and other Indigenous categories and leave Category:Squamish people (singular) for the biographies of individual Squamish people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    • You persist in ignoring what I've explained to you, that Category:Squamish people was deemed by the CfD's adjudicator as being the only acceptable solution, despite the well-known "FOO people" problem which, yes, is a big problem and part of why the authentic endonyms were adopted for the ethnic group categories in Category:First Nations in British Columbia. And I've also explained to you, and you persist in refusing to admit to your mistake, that Category:Squamish cannot be used because the ethnic group is demonstrably NOT the PRIMARYTOPIC. Your listing of "Category:Squamish Nation, Category:Squamish First Nations, Category:Squamish peoples (pluralized) etc." demonstrates to those who know the material, and the language of Canadian indigenous topics, of your complete lack of qualifications to comment on any naming for this people; to whit, there are not "Squamish peoples", there are not multiple band governments (which the convention "FOO First Nation(s) is used for when used in titles), there is only the Squamish Nation, but that is NOT (REPEAT NOT) the same thing as the Skwxwu7mesh people and should not be used for this category. As has all been gone over before in the CfD you claim to have read but clearly did NOT get the slightest whiff of what it meant. Your obstinacy about your unilateral action here, and your persistence in advancing suggestions which were done away with long ago, strikes me as messing around where you do not belong about matters which you do not understand. I invited you to do the easiest, obvious and most indigenously authentic action, to rename your newly created and workable category name Category:Skwxwu7mesh, but instead of heeding that you created it as a redirect to your own pet new Category:Squamish which cannot stand. You told me "other editors" should have their say; they did, you ignored them; they are speaking again, and more will follow and yet you still trot out your half-baked understanding and point to the FOO people problem as if that were at fault. What was at fault here was people taking part in naming decisions who don't know the subject matter or interpret what little they do know speciously. And yes, Fayenatic London, before I eat up all Misplaced Pages's server space I'll desist from saying again what I've had to say too many times before and not be provoked into a "if Skookum1 hadn't been so vocal he might have got his way" judgment of this as others have played in the past (including the other rogue editor who perpetrated teh "FOO people" problem and behaved similarly parochial, dictating from outside BC what BC first nations peoples should be allowed to call themselves....which is much the same problem here, despite my 'opponent" being a pro-indigenous editor herself...that someone would say something as inane as "use the band government name" (Squamish Nation) just shows me how completely out of touch she is with this topic and why she should never have presumed to make a simplistic, from-outside action that now requires explanations of all the arguments she would not listen to and told me to go find "other editors" to have their say. Apparently those who have spoken before, including the category's creator, were not good enough for her.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am disagreeing with you, which is allowed. If everyone can agree on a new category name, such Category:Squamish First Nations, that's fine with me. All the other groups in Category:First Nations in British Columbia are simply the name of the group. In other provinces, almost all groups are the name of the group; however, exceptions are Category:Mohawk tribe and Category:Blackfoot tribe‎. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
You can disagree with me but only by ignoring pertinent facts. (a) the primary topic of "Squamish" is the town (b) "Squamish people" was mandated by CfD taking into account all the factors you persist in ignoring (c) "Squamish First Nations" is completely a non sequitur and is out of step with all other Canadian FN categories, and is clear demonstration of your lack of qualification to comment on this subject at all. "You do not have a right to your opinion" if it is wrong, i.e. to have your opinion taken seriously, which it cannot be. Category:Mohawk tribe is problematic, as is Category:Blackfoot tribe, because in wiki convention "FOO tribe" is for federally-recognized tribes when used as category names but both Mohawk and Blackfoot are more numerous on the Canadian side of the border where the "FOO tribe" usage is not workable (though there are a few bands such as Tlowitsis Tribe that use "Tribe" in their names). "all the other groups in :Category:First Nations in British Columbia, yes, are the name of the group. This one's name was Category:Skwxwu7mesh - the authentic name, not the anglicized form of it - until another editor or two, as ignorant of the subject matter as you are, waded in and first rapidly RMd the main article, then speedied the category change, and like you don't seem to have a clue about the geographic confusion/ambiguity that results. Unless you feel that a category for the Illinois people should be at Category:Illinois.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Illinois Confederacy. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
"Illinois Confederacy" is a political alliance category, and only by extension includes ethnographic articles. This falls in with your equally weak and out of place suggestion that "Squamish Nation" should be the ethno category title, even though that's the name of the whiteman-imposed government.... there's a lot of inconsistencies across IPNA names and categories, you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories, saying I had not enough knowledge to work on that area, and then yet you wade in here, clearly without any knowledge of the people or the geography at all, and start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about.Skookum1 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of doing what too many Wikipedians do, screwing around with category and article names without even knowing the subject matter, why don't you actually work on improving BC First Nations articles and learning about the subject matter and cultural/political realities and language/nomenclature used before pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand 3D films

Nominator's rationale: Another seemingly useless category. Populated by one article and not itself a member of any other category. If it can't be populated, it should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Baseball players by team

Nominator's rationale: The general WP:CONSENSUS among most other sports (most noticably football/footy/soccer, but also many others) is that when it comes to categorising by team, categories use the most recent name of the team, regardless of any previous names, and that previous names are category redirects to the current one. In these cases, this is in fact the case for most sorts of categories (for instance, Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays redirects to Category:Tampa Bay Rays), however these "Footown Bars players" categories have remained 'split out' by team name. Now, in some cases, this may be desirable - in cases there there was an intermediate period between incarnations of a team where it was not playing/did not exist, or in cases where a team changed cities (indeed, I have not nominated any of the latter, as "town played in" is highly WP:DEFINING). However in cases where the name of the team was the only thing that changed, categorising players seperately by the different names makes little sense; it makes it difficult for the reader, who may not know which name the team used when the player they are trying to find played for them ("Barfoo Ballplayer played for the Cubs, I know it!" "Um, ow, he played for the Orphans." "...who?!"), and leads to needless duplication of categories on players who played for the same team under multiple names. (The "Cincinatti Redlegs" would be perhaps the most ridiculous example of this, the name used only for a six-year period in the pre-free-agency era with the team known as the "Reds" both before and after.) Therefore, I believe that the encyclopedia would be improved by having these categories merged to the current team name in all cases; the reader is best served by having the players categorised in this fashion, with the players broken down by 'name the team used at the time' using lists. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has been a practice to list the different iterations of the teams separately. Most Tampa Bay Devil Rays players never played for the Tampa Bay Rays and they shouldnt be in such a category. It makes little sense to combine them.Spanneraol (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It's a practice that wildly differs from virtually all other sports. How does it serve the reader to categorise players who played for the exact same team differently? How is it sensible to say that "Florida Marlins" and "Miami Marlins" players should be categorised seperately when the only thing that changed about the team was its name? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Players for the same team in the same city belong in the same category. - Eureka Lott 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think these categories serve as much purpose as categories for teams whose name changed due to a relocation. If the name is different, we should have a separate category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Original characters and objects in The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Nominator's rationale: Category contained only two articles, which I have depopulated and itself is not a member of any category. Not enough use to bother keeping. Safiel (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19: Difference between revisions Add topic