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: Just want to be sure about this. Created by me several years ago, this has to date been a category for the Canadian political family -- which now includes two prime ministers,
PierreandJustin, along with siblings, spouses and grandparents. I've just had to remove unrelated bio articles for
Zénon Trudeau and
Edward Livingston Trudeau (great grand-father of the Doonesbury creator). I think some of disambiguation is in order to avoid this problem cropping up again, and I've used a sibling category
Category:Cannon family of Canada as a guide. This look right to people, or do editors feel that a qualifier is not required, just a category description (which I've just added).
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Usage notes are rarely sufficient, in and of themselves, to solve an ambiguity issue — lots of people just add the categories that they think are applicable, and then walk away without ever actually checking the category page to verify whether the category was actually meant for that purpose or not. (For example, even with a usage note on ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Biography clarifying that it's for articles about the subject of biography and not for biographical articles about people, I still have to clean it up at least twice a month for the inclusion of three, four or five new biographical articles about people.) That said, there are sources out there which claim that Garry and Edward are distantly related to the Pierre-and-Justin clan (it's claimed, frex, on Garry's
IMDb page) — but (a) we would need much better sourcing than that before we could assert it here, (b) I can't find any similar confirmation on Zénon, and (c) even if it is true for any of them, the relationship is far too distant and contextually irrelevant to justify adding them to a category that's meant specifically for the Canadian political family. So a rename is in order — I'm inclined more toward ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Trudeau political family, and would also support renaming the Cannons that way as well.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
The problem being that bad categorization ends up having to be cleaned up by somebody after the fact — and by definition, even that can only happen if somebody notices the bad categorization, meaning articles can be left sitting in inappropriate categories for months.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:50, 18 February 2016 (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.
Oil by country
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:procedural close. No categories were tagged, no clear rationale was offered, and there is no sign of any consensus emerging from discussion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment It might be appropriate to merge, possibly leaving a redirect.
Category:Petroleum by country would be a satisfactory target. A potential reason for having both is that the reserves articles are probably about oil production, whereas those in the target may be more related to consumption. I suspect the nom is not familiar with the CFD process.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:47, 7 February 2016 (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:Ukrainian writers by nationality
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: Badly constituted category tree of uncertain value. Firstly, and most importantly, this was created as a direct subcategory of ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Ukrainian writers — but that category is for writers who are personally from
Ukraine, and not for writers from other countries who had ancestors from Ukraine. So this doesn't belong there. Secondly, "X writers of Y descent" are permitted for broad groupings like
Asian Americans or
Jews or
African Americans — but every individual country where a person might have ethnic roots does not constitute a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of that writer in and of itself, especially as an intersection with the country they're actually from. And thirdly, most of the subcategories are
WP:SMALLCATs. Delete all.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom, and as useless distinction - these folks aren't writing in the Ukrainian language, which might be a distinction worthy of note, but just happen to have distant ancestry allegedly traced to territory now constituting (what's left of?) Ukraine.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete parent, merge to general descent categories for child cats. Additionally endorse any removal from the tree of articles where Ukrainian ancestry is non-defining. Although to be fair it will often be defining.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:11, 16 February 2016 (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:Yale University alumni, 1971-1980
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. (The category creator also asked for the category to be deleted via a message left on the category page, declaring that it was just an "experiment").
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not yet populated, I don't see us using by-decade groupings for alumni other major universities, nor is that how categories for people per organization really tend to work, here.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Alumni categories for the most important universities are likely to become very large, so that I see some merit in splitting by decade of graduation. A category with a population in the high hundreds or thousands is too large to be easy to use. This will group together people of a similar age group.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:56, 7 February 2016 (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:People associated with adoption
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:Video games on Steam
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: Irrelevant category. This is simply going to be added to all PC & Mac games sold on the
Steam (software) platform. Since almost every PC game released is released on Steam this category is a little like adding 'Books sold by Amazon' to most book related articles. Since technically Steam, in this instance, is referring to it as a store, it's the equivalent of putting categories for every store chain that sells video games and adding them to the games. E.g. Video games sold by EB Games, Video games sold by Gamestop, Video games sold by Best Buy etc.
Canterbury Tailtalk12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator's rationale. Also, if this article by
Forbes is to be believed, there are some 300 million played games on Steam. Categories such as "steam-only" games might be suitable, but the current naming suggests that's not how this category is being used. JollyΩJanner12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - not even sure that games that require Steam is that interesting anymore. A large percentage of games now require Steam as the main running and distribution platform. Even many games sold in physical format are basically just codes and access to Steam to install there.
Canterbury Tailtalk15:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: There have been attempts at making this category several times already and each has been deleted precisely for the reasons of the nominator's rationale. That being said, I love the analogy you made in your nomination,
Canterbury Tail.
DARTHBOTTOtalk•
cont03:03, 7 February 2016 (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:Tavistock, Devon
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:Plymouth, Devon
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, kept by default. -
Beland 15:09, 16 April 2016
Rationalle: This was originally requested at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy based on C2D "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article", however speedy cannot over rule the previous discussion on
2 December 2008. The previous discussion did not seem to acknowledge policy guidelines and was a collection of opinions on what is ambiguous, which ended in essentially a straw-poll-based consensus. I believe after reviewing our own policies, this should not have been moved back in 2008. Per
Wikipedia:Categorization "Standard article naming conventions apply;" which suggests it should follow the naming of the article it is based on.
Plymouth has retained its title since its creation in 2001 and there have been discussions about it, so this would suggest long-lasting stability. Unless
Plymouth is moved or there is policy which suggests categories need the bar raised for what is a "primary topic", I see no policy-based grounds for this to differ from the article's title. JollyΩJanner12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Because categories will collect incorrect articles if given ambiguous names. Someone finding the wrong article will merely search again.
Oculi (
talk)
01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The existing page
Category:Plymouth is a category disambiguation page with no fewer than six "Plymouth" categories, which to my mind makes it stark staring obvious that it should be kept as it is. Articles can handle disambiguation more easily than categories; the latter need to be unambiguous unless there is an extremely strong primary topic. –
FayenaticLondon10:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Apart from the defunct automobile brand, the only real contenders are the two substantially smaller towns
Plymouth, Massachusetts and
Plymouth, Connecticut. Now, the city in England is substantially larger and constitutes the "original" Plymouth the Pilgrim Fathers departed from to establish what today is
Plymouth, Massachusetts. The two U.S. towns are both located in New England and not all too far from each other, so disambiguating between them is common practice, see for example the two towns' websites
http://www.plymouth-ma.gov/ and
http://www.plymouthct.us/. Thus, the risk for miscategorization is very low. --
PanchoS (
talk)
00:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Much as I like the idea, there is a significant risk of it picking up articles on other subjects. The classic case of this is Birmingham, whose categories are at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to keep those on Birmingham, AL out of it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename, since the article is at
Plymouth and has been determined to be the primary meaning. Categories can also have disambiguation headers, just like articles, and the other meanings can easily be dealt with in this way.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I have read some of the opposing arguments and one that is consistent is the potential for Category:Plymouth to pick up articles and categories that are related to Plymouth, MA or the car maker. While it is unlikely (especially since the article titles are disambiguated), I guess it is certainly possible for an inexperienced user to make this mistake. On the other hand, what is the likelihood of someone incorrectly categorising an article related to Plymouth, Devon into the Plymouth category (don't forget that the article holds the Plymouth title)? Are there measures in place to ensure articles and categories do not end up in disambiguation categories? If, not the incorrect categorisation argument may be null, since it could occur at either title. JollyΩJanner20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Good point. I believe that it's far more likely for an article to be miscategorized by placing it in the DAB category than it would be for things to end up in ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Plymouth if that category were about the place in England. Users who seem to worry so much about theoretical miscategorizations never seem to acknowledge that having an article name different than the corresponding category name is likely to cause far more problems than having them consistent. And in my experience, this is true in practice. Miscategorization as described by the worriers is quite rare. Something like
Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories could be created to deal with populated DAB categories, but I don't think it exists yet. (The unnecessary-and-overzealous-category-disambiguation example that always cracks me up the most is ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Rio de Janeiro (city).)
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Birmingham is f'd up too. The main article is
Birmingham. It would be much easier if category names just matched the article name. For one, it would avoid having the name issue discussed in two different locations, for the article and then again for the category. I know—categories are different—yada, yada, yada—I just don't see much evidence that the problems everyone is afraid of ever amount to much. It's going to be fun to see Wikipedia embarrassed over the Rio issue once the Olympics are upon us. I also find it interesting that no one ever pushes this issue to its logical conclusion—@
Oculi: why no movement to rename ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:London or ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Paris due to their ambiguity? I know these cases are more extreme, but this is the logical consequence. So where and how do users draw the line?
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Category:Bristol is the closest parallel for this situation (that I've come across so far). It currently goes by the article name, but I'm interested as to how severe the level of miscategorisation is. There are at least three different places with categories of "People from Bristol". Again, I'm not suggesting we change Plymouth, because of Bristol's naming location, but it would be interesting to see how well it has functioned. JollyΩJanner04:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment We draw the line where it makes sense, where the competing cities have some claim to notability on equal status with the parent city. That is 100% true in the case of
Birmingham, Alabama. It is also true in the case of
Plymouth, Massachusetts especially in light of the Plymouth Colony. No Paris or London comes close to the standing of to cities in France and England.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename. While I'd favor to add disambiguators in city names more often than we currently have (like in this case), in the end I have to admit that it has to start with the article name and it's no use to have different criteria for disambiguators in category names than in article names.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
If we're going down that line, which seems highly unproductive IMO, the Plymouth, Devon category as a little over 2,000 articles in it.
Grutness...wha?01:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This rename would create no benefit to readers or editors. However, it would create ambiguity, increasing the risk of miscategorisations which are hard to detect, and highly disruptive to readers. I am aware that the article name has been selected as a primarytopic, but I see no logical reason why categories should not adopt a higher threshold for primacy ... and in cases such as this, very good reasons to set a higher threshold. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename For every
Category:Birmingham, West Midlands (a seriously awful title reflecting a usage only found with badly programmed online address forms) there are many such cases as
Category:Worcester or
Category:Cambridge. This "higher category bar" seems to be defined only as cases where some users added a disambiguation tag and managed to resist matching the article title. Not matching the article title creates problems for both readers and editors, not having random excessive disambiguation is of only benefit to some editors who would still have the problem with the complete lack of a standard. Additionally different standards mean CFD risks duplicating some of the longer and more intense RMs for no benefit.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
10:17, 23 March 2016 (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:People associated with Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
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:Charlie Puth
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: A bit premature for an eponymous category. Precedent and
WP:OCEPON have determined that an individual requires more than just articles and categories about their works, which are already categorized by a specific topic under the individual's name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:55, 3 February 2016 (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:Fictional United States Army Military Police Corps personnel
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:American Chemical Society academic journals
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 -- IN WP we have long sought to have abbreviations expanded, because most of us do not know what the initials stand for. The official name of the publisher can be dealt with in a headnote to the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:00, 3 February 2016 (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.