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 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:Members of the CPPCC National Committee
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.
Oppose The target is an awful mouthful. For British MP categories we use abbreviations. I think this is an exception where abbreviations are acceptable. The expansion should be given in a head note.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And in any case, there's little sense in keeping the two nominated categories in the different formats they are currently in. "of the People's Republic of China" is redundant.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:15, 30 December 2014 (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:Members of the The Hague Guild of Saint Luke
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Was proposed at
speedy but opposed based on an invalid appeal to the Manual of Style (see copied discussion below). Even if the issue is not addressed by the MOS (and it appears that it is not), it does makes sense to me to eliminate the first "the" in this case, if only for ease of reading and per what I think is probably the predominant usage, notwithstanding counterexamples being available.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The MOS doesn't seem to have any guidance on "the The"
[1], and the capitalization of The Hague is already present. Whether this construction is wanted on Wikipedia or not is not clear to me, it certainly is in use in the real world
[2]. But I don't think a rename should be done "per MoS" when the MoS doesn't give any guidance on this.
Fram (
talk)
14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
This makes it quite clear we don't say "the The Lord of The Rings" or "the The Hague". We don't even say "the The The" unless we want to be funny. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
Indeed. "Public transport in the Amsterdam" would be nonsensical, so the example of "Public transport in The Hague" doesn't help us here.
Fram (
talk)
08:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose per consistency (all others are "members of the City Name guild of Saint Luke", and the City Name in this case is The Hague) and because it isn't wrong (both systems seem to be used, I can't really see much difference in prevalence in comparable situations).
Fram (
talk)
08:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support The preceding "the" is not required. We don't precede many other place names with "the" unless they typically are presented as so (a notable absence is that
The Hague article doesn't start with "The The Hague" - while the
Dominican Republic does so). For groups we wouldn't create things like "Members of the The Beatles" either. Stylistically the rename is preferable and causes no issue in legibility.
SFB10:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't get your example of the
The Hague article. No (or very few) city articles will start with a "the" before the name of the city, just take a look at
Amsterdam,
Paris,
Antwerp or
Los Angeles. So why would you expect
The Hague to be different? The comparison with the Dominican Republic is incorrect, as there you have a name which is also an adjective - noun combination, where it isn't weird to start the article with an additional "the". But city articles are never (well, in the few examples I gave) started with a "the", so the fact that
The Hague doesn't start with an additional "the" is meaningless.
Fram (
talk)
11:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Fram: Well we do have
The Forks, Maine and
The Bronx, the latter
Category:The Bronx shows precedent for avoiding "the The Bronx". What is the benefit of the additional "the"? Given your examples, I'm not sure how your comment supports the status quo. I read your argument as "The Hague is different and not like other city names, therefore we should use 'the The'".
SFB11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I see nothing in
The Forks, Maine that has any bearing on this discussion (either option). There is nothing in that article that would make a choice between "The Forks" and "the The Forks" even necessary. The
Category:The Bronx is a lot more relevant, and supports moving this The Hague category. Still, I don't see it as compelling. As for my comment, and the reference to other cities, they were not meant as support for my position, but as an indication that your previous reason for opposition was meaningless: if cities without "the" don't get a "the" at the start of their article, then the lack of a double "the" at the start of the
The Hague article (I hope you'll agree that at least here, the double "the" is necessary?) can not be used as supporting evidence for your position, just like your example here of The Forks doesn't add anything to support either position. Like I said, you The Bronx category example is a much stronger and dierctly relevant argument.
Fram (
talk)
12:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support While it makes the tree slightly non-standard from a strict structural sense ("Members of the"+[City Name]+"Guild of Saint Luke"), it will be clearer to average reader.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
16:52, 19 December 2014 (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:Unreleased horror films
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.
Deleted after upmerging. Personally, I think this an unhelpful move: if you want an unreleased horror film, you now have to filter through 163 articles instead of going through 7. However, closing administrators
aren't dictators, and consensus is clear here.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:52, 31 December 2014 (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:Articles containing video clips
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.
Note, I'm not really opposed with the idea of some sort of categorization but want to get community feedback if this should be otherwise organized prior to bulk populating the category. —
xaosfluxTalk14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
oppose; though I welcome the discussion. I would actually like to see this become a parent category for subdivisions -- perhaps by type of article (astronomy articles with video clips, etc). I think this could be useful for curated collections as well as editing efforts in the nascent effort to add more video to articles. (And yes I realize Commons is categorizing videos too, but that's a parallel effort). A category with 7,000 is smaller than most of our maintenance categories. If we start have tens or hundreds of thousands of videos in articles (which will probably happen eventually), we can reconsider. --
phoebe / (
talk to me)
05:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
additional comment: if there's a better way than a parent category to track video usage in Wikipedia it would be great to figure that out. There's the
tool that I got the list from in the first place, but that seems even more unwieldy (as well as not being able to search by category intersection etc.) --
phoebe / (
talk to me)
05:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
No wait, i don't agree with the category subdivisions, that is not needed (no faceted categories, please). I really hope that we can replace this category-tracking with something else later, maybe when commons is wikidatafied (automatic video-file categories). Until then, lets keep this category. --
Atlasowa (
talk)
17:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename if Kept If this category is useful, it should be renamed "Category:Wikipedia articles containing video clips" and possibly moved to the Talk pages. (No opinion on whether this category is usuful or whether it should be deleted.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a good tracking category, especially since 7000 is such a tiny proportion of our articles. RevelationDirect wants a name change, but I don't care about the name, so "keep" only means "don't delete".
Nyttend (
talk)
18:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It is in use by
VWA. We already
begged for help and
again, but even after I managed to find TMg to code
this great tool no bot-owner wanted to. But go ahead, destroy our work and help hiding the few articles+video we have yet even more - WMF does it, so you can, too. --
.js (
talk)
01:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
.js:, though I'm the nominator I am mostly concerned with ensuring that there is a sufficient consensus for this category to exist as is, or complete any quick-fixes prior to having it become bot populated. To the editor closing this discussion: please do not consider my nomination a !vote. —
xaosfluxTalk03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
comment: If it is decided that this category should be kept, it would be possible to turn it into a
tracking category - where every time someone edits a page, mediawiki checks if it currently has a video on it, and adds it to the category if so. Please let me know if such a functionality would be desired, and I can work on making the changes to MediaWiki (It wouldn't be very hard). In case its useful, I also have a big list of all articles with videos on them that's updated once a week at
https://tools.wmflabs.org/bawolff/usedVideos.htm .
Bawolff (
talk)
23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a good reason for keeping it can be found and the anomalies it causes (e.g. placing articles that are not about video in
Category:Video) can be resolved. Having (for example) the
Elephant article categorized under
Category:Digital media is the sort of thing that hinders category intersection. If kept then rename as proposed above.
DexDor (
talk)
07:29, 31 December 2014 (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:Streets in San Antonio, Texas
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.
Nominator's rationale: There is only
one article in the category so it doesn't aid navigation. There is no overall scheme to categorize every street by municipality that would pass
WP:SMALLCAT. I have no objection to recreating this category later if additional articles are created later.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge Little content that benefits from navigation at this time. No opposition to recreation should more such articles be created.
SFB10:46, 19 December 2014 (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:Parliament of Italy
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Was proposed at
speedy but opposed by a user who was not happy with the article being at
Italian Parliament. Since then, no attempts have been made to change the article name, and it is reasonably stable, having been at its current name for over two years. As per usual practice, the categories should match the name of the article. If the article name ever changes, so too should the categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Speedy The official name according to the constitution (as quoted by the
Italian article seems to be just Parliament (Parlamento), not Italian Parliament. There does not seem to be a most common form in this case in
Category:Parliaments by country, either for articles or categories. I suggest you either ask for the renaming of the article in sth like Parliament (Italy) or Parliament of Italy, or start a discussion towards a convention for naming bodies called just Parliament in their native language without any qualifier.
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The official name is not particularly relevant when determining what the article name should be. What is more relevant is the common name. But this nomination is not about changing the article name. It is about conforming the category names to the article name. Any discussion of the article name takes place on the article talk page. If you want to propose changing it, of course you can, but it won't happen through discussion here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support speedy Article name is stable so this is reasonable. No opposition to a rename should the article be successfully moved.
SFB10:47, 19 December 2014 (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.